Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 11 February.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CENTRE FROM BUCKINGHAM BILL (By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Sheepmeat

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations within the European Council of Ministers with regard to the sheepmeat regime.

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on European Community proposals for the reform of the sheepmeat regime; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The current focus of discussions in the Council is on the need for budgetary stabilisers—in the sheep as well as in other sectors. Discussions on the Commission's proposals for longer-term reform of the regime have as yet barely started.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all of us in the House—and, indeed, on a far wider basis—on the successful outcome of his litigation in the European Court, which will be to the benefit of the British sheep farmer? Will he seek to ensure that those farmers who lost premium will be recompensed by the Commission? In the broader context of his negotiations, will he seek to achieve an outcome which will reflect the vital interest of the farmers in the upland areas of the west of England and Wales, who are entirely dependent on the sheepmeat industry and who have very little opportunity for alternative enterprise?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend has said, the European Court found in our favour in three cases taken up by the British Government this week on the imposition of clawback on sheepmeat not eligible for variable premium. The Court found that that was illegal, and it will not now be imposed. The Court also found that calculations of ewe premium for British producers in 1984 and 1985 were unfair and must be redone.
My hon. Friend asked about repayments to sheep producers. We calculate that the amount is approximately £11 million, and we shall now have to engage in discussions on how to repay British farmers. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this is yet another sign that British persistence can pay off, and that we fight for our legitimate interests.
In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, I have spent a good deal of time recently in the west country. I am well aware of the importance of sheep to west country farmers, and will bear that in mind in the review of the regime which we shall undertake later this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for brief questions, please?

Mr. Wigley: While welcoming the fact that one hurdle has been overcome, will the Minister do all that he can to speed up the payment of that money? Will he look ahead to circumstances in which there is longer-term negotiation? Can he ensure that areas which are totally dependent on sheepmeat and have no alternative products are safeguarded by an income guarantee; or, alternatively,


that sheep production is identified with that land and will not be sucked into the richer parts, to the detriment of the hill areas?

Mr. MacGregor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we shall have to study the judgment and discuss the matter with the Commission. I can, however, assure him that I shall be anxious to sort the matter out as quickly as possible—[Interruption.]
The hon. Gentleman's second point goes rather wider than the review of the sheepmeat regime. However, although these matters are complex, I am aware of the importance of any changes in the agricultural sector for hill farmers who are dependent on sheep. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) remains patient, he may be called, but he will not be called from a sedentary position.

Sir Hector Monro: Let me add my congratulations on my right hon. Friend's undoubted success in Europe—and, of course, the congratulations of the National Farmers Union in Scotland.
Will my right hon. Friend maintain — indeed, redouble — his outstanding efforts on behalf of the uplands? There is no profitable alternative there to sheep and cattle farming. Will my right hon. Friend therefore do all that he can to keep the highlands profitable?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The review of the regime generally will involve complex, long and hard negotiations. Details on most aspects of the Commission's plans are still lacking, and the attitudes of other member states are not known. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that my general approach will be to resist changes which would discriminate against the United Kingdom's interest, to secure arrangements which will allow fair competition, and to enable the United Kingdom, which very much includes Scottish farmers, to capitalise on our natural production advantages.

Dr. David Clark: In his review of last week, did the Minister note that many upland sheep farmers are on perilously low incomes? Will he give the House a categorical guarantee that he will not bargain away any concessions in the sheepmeat regime in order to obtain advantages elsewhere? What proposals has he to improve the incomes of those farmers who rely on sheep?

Mr. MacGregor: On the whole, farmers in the livestock sector and in the uplands did not experience the same drop in their incomes as those in the cereal areas, who were heavily affected by weather last year. Obviously we are entering into complex negotiations here. Because of the rising costs of the sheepmeat sector we must accept stabilisers in sheepmeat, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with that. I cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I have clearly said, I shall be fighting to enable all our sheep farmers to capitalise on their natural advantages.

Mr. Key: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of all the breeds of sheep on this island, the only one that is particularly useful and has tremendous potential for export to hot developing countries, is the Wiltshire horned sheep? Will he do all that he can to promote it? Is he aware that, like so much else in Wiltshire, it is good to eat and is not woolly?

Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says. I cannot speak precisely on that breed of sheep, but this year

we have managed to secure the renewal to January 1989 of clawback exemption for exports to non-EEC countries, and that will be helpful to our sheep exporters.

North Sea Cod and Saithe

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the approximate dates at which reviews may be undertaken of the total allowable catches for the current year of North sea cod and saithe.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Scientific advice on these stocks is given by the advisory committee on fisheries management of the International Council of the Exploration of the Sea, which next meets on 16 to 26 May. Should the report of this meeting provide a basis for reviewing the current year's TACs, the first step would be to have consultations between the European Community and Norway, as these are both joint stocks, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Ross: The Minister must accept that in a very real sense inshore fishermen run small businesses and that, if they are to do so successfully, they must be given some stability. Therefore, can we have TACs based on two or three years?

Mr. Gummer: I wish that we could. The problem is that fish do not obey the natural rules that we would like them to do. Therefore, we have to watch, because we are concerned that the next generation should have fish to fish. I should like to give fishermen that stability, but I put conservation first and last, so I always fight for the conservation answer.

Mr. John Greenway: When my right hon. Friend looks at the review dates for North sea cod quota, will he take note of the problems affecting the fishermen of Filey? Will he bear in mind that those fishermen can only fish for cod from October onwards, and if our United Kingdom quota expires they will be in terrible financial peril?

Mr. Gummer: I see my hon. Friend's point, but we try to share out the quota fairly among fishermen in the United Kingdom. One problem is that sometimes individual fishermen's groups do not share out their quota to enable it to last a whole year. It would be unfair to take quota away from areas which have dealt with the matter properly in order to hand it to people who may not have been so sensible.

Dr. Godman: Total allowable catches and quotas are an important element in fisheries management. Has the Minister received representations proposing a mesh size increase to 125 mm for cod stock? As the northern North sea demersal fisheries are made up of cod, whiting and haddock — they are mixed fisheries — and such an increase would have a disastrous effect upon our fishermen, will he assure the House that he is not contemplating such a change vis-à-vis the North sea cod fisheries?

Mr. Gummer: When the hon. Gentleman began his question I did not know which of the various groups he was going to support. My problem is that I have received applications and been subject to pressures from all of them —those who want larger mesh to avoid the problems of strict control over TACs and quotas, and those who want


smaller mesh because they want to catch whiting. I try to find the best possible answer in all the circumstances and in response to the pressures, but, above all, I put conservation first.

Tree Planting

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he plans to take to encourage tree planting.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): There are existing grants available for tree planting and we shall also be introducing a farm woodland scheme later this year following the passage of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill. In addition, the Community set-aside scheme, on which discussions are continuing in the Council of Ministers, is expected to include provision for woodlands on arable land.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time of very large surpluses, it is ironic and regrettable that such a large percentage of our timber requirements are still imported? I welcome the new schemes, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative to examine ways of improving the management of the existing 270,000 hectares of farm woodland? What measures does he propose to increase farm woodland management schemes of existing woodlands?

Mr. Thompson: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do all that we can to grow more trees, and the schemes that I outlined in my initial reply will largely cover that. Advice from ADAS is always available on all aspects of management, and I am sure that that will be taken up more and more as the importance of trees becomes known to farmers.

Ms. Quin: In view of the concern that has been expressed about tree planting in the wrong places—for example, the large numbers of conifer plantations in many of our beautiful upland areas—will the Minister consult his hon. Friend the Chancellor and urge that the tax concessions made available for this activity be reduced or eliminated?

Mr. Thompson: Taxation is strictly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not intend to wander down that path. Forestry, such as that described by the hon. Lady, is the province of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Miss Emma Nicholson: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), may I ask the Minister to look carefully at the scheme being put forward by Dartington Trust to help farmers manage existing small woodlands more effectively for commercial purposes?

Mr. Thompson: I will do as my hon. Friend asks.

Farming Methods

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is conducting into the environmental consequences of less intensive farming methods.

Mr. Gummer: The Ministery is studying the environmental effects of various forms of less intensive farming in

a wide range of research projects, and we shall be closely monitoring the effects of supporting traditional farming practices in the environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that the de-intensification of farming practices will help this nation and the people by reducing the pollution of the air? It will mean a massive reduction in these wicked and terrible chemicals that are planted on our land, in our environment and in the air that we breathe. Is the Minister aware that I believe in the birds and the bees, the squirrels and the rabbits? It will help the environment of our nation if the Minister travels the right road. What sort of options are open? What is he going to encourage the farmers to do?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's vigour and enthusiasm come from the fact that he can enjoy the most varied diet that people have been able to enjoy for generations. That is because of the sensible use of modern farming techniques. I would not want to do anything to denigrate the important advances in farming techniques over the past 100 years, many of which have been made possible by benign chemicals. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that, for the first time, we have made major advances in encouraging organic farming and in research into various forms of de-intensification. I cannot say, however, that I have any specific research programme on either squirrels or rabbits.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer to that rather robust question from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). Will he bear in mind that real advantages will be apparent in East Anglia, for example, not merely for the birds, bees and butterflies, but for cuckoo spit and the general enhancement of the countryside, if we do something about the hedgerows?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it was sensible that three of the environmentally sensitive areas that were recently designated included the Suffolk river valleys, the Brecklands and the Broads. We are going to great trouble 1.0 ensure that the farming practices carried out in those areas will encourage all that my hon. Friend would want, including cuckoo spit.

Mr. Ron Davies: If the Minister seriously favours less-intensive farming, can he explain to the House why the Ministry is currently considering proposals to pay farmers more than £100 an acre to do nothing?

Mr. Gummer: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not read our proposals. We are not going to pay farmers to do nothing. We are going to pay some farmers to look after the land in a way that is environmentally satisfactory, but will not produce extra crops which we cannot sell and which are an additional cost to the taxpayer. We believe that to be a sensible policy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to oppose Government policy, he should first read that policy.

Green Pound

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the level of the green pound.

Mr. MacGregor: I have received a number of representations.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless there is a substantial devaluation of the green pound in the


near future, farmers in Suffolk and elsewhere in Britain face the prospect of trading at a substantial competitive disadvantage in relation to farmers in other EEC member states? That is a particularly grave prospect in the light of the difficult year that many experienced in 1987.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be aware that the devaluations are normally best made as part of the price fixing, when a balance can be struck in the light of all considerations. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the devaluation in the 1987 price fixing, which reduced United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts by seven points for beef and by 5·5 points in every other sector, improved our competitive position in relation to all our main EEC partners. We have not yet had the Commission's proposals for the coming year. Therefore, it would be premature to say what the position might be, but I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Livsey: I am sure the Minister will have noted that his Department's figures show that farm incomes in real terms are now 35 per cent. of what they were 10 years ago. Does he agree that a substantial devaluation now of the green pound, approximately 19 per cent. negative, would be of extreme advantage to British producers, who are suffering greatly because of low farm incomes?

Mr. MacGregor: I believe that the position varies between the different sectors. I have yet to see the Commission's proposals, and we shall make our judgment in the light of them. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has said, I believe that British farmers could compete very well in a common market, but they find it extremely difficult to compete in the uncommon market in which they find themselves. As well as doing away with the green currencies as soon as possible, have the Government any plans to join the European monetary system, which would also help?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the question of the European monetary system is a matter for Ministers other than myself. My hon. Friend asks about getting rid of the monetary compensatory amount system, but he will know that that is one of the most complex areas of the common agricultural policy. The Commission has set the objective of abolishing the monetary compensatory amount system by 1992, when the single European market comes into effect. I strongly support that policy and have already made that clear in the Community.

Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that MCAs are causing particular difficulty in the United Kingdom pig industry at the present time? What steps do the Government intend to take to stop many pig farmers going bankrupt before MCAs on pigmeat are withdrawn?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear to our pig farmers that I accept the objective of removing MCAs from the pigmeat sector, and I shall be actively pursuing that in future negotiations. The House should be under no illusions. This is one of the most contested areas in any Council discussion, with varying points of view taken by different member states. I have made it clear that it is my

intention to press hard in the price-fixing negotiations to secure further improvements for the pigmeat sector, because I understand the position that it faces.

Mr. Lord: May I underline the point that has just been made to my right hon. Friend? He will know that Suffolk has a tremendous number of pig farmers and producers, who are among the most efficient in the world and who do not normally expect help because they understand that the industry is cyclical. However, they are now in real danger, and, unless there is some real, urgent, direct and positive help, most of the pig farmers will go under. I beg my right hon. Friend to examine the issue with great urgency.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend, who represents the constituency adjoining mine, in which there are large numbers of pig producers, that I have been well aware for some time of the situation in the industry. I have already made clear my position on MCAs. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to note that last Friday, as a result of United Kingdom pressure, backed by some other member states, a scheme for the reintroduction of private storage aids has now been accepted and will come into place on 15 February. I believe that that will be of some help.
As my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, there is a pig cycle, and all around the world there is now surplus pig production.

Rating Reform

Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the effects of the introduction of the community charge on farmers and farm workers.

Mr. Donald Thompson: I have received a number of representations about the effects on farmers and farm workers of the proposed introduction of the community charge.

Mr. Pike: Is it not true that many farm workers who are poorly paid have their rates paid for them with the provision of the property in which they live? Once they have to pay the new poll tax, will they not be heavily penalised? If the farmers pay it for them, will not the farm workers have to pay income tax on that payment?

Mr. Thompson: The National Farmers Union and the farm workers' unions are seeking clarification from the Inland Revenue on that precise point.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend share the surprise of many Conservative Members to hear Opposition Members criticising the community charge, when their policy is to rate agricultural property, which would put up food prices and devastate farm incomes?

Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is correct. Agriculture receives about £450 million by not being rated. That increases every year as some authorities, such as my own, put rates up by 40 per cent.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that rural depopulation will be significantly increased if the poll tax is imposed on agricultural workers without full compensation being taken into account in agricultural wages board settlements? Does he also accept that it is an absurdity that the poorest farm labourer, on a wage


counted in tens rather than hundreds of pounds, will pay exactly the same poll tax as the richest landowner and the wealthiest farmer?

Mr. Thompson: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If the poll tax— the community charge — [HON. MEMBERS: "The poll tax."] If the community charge — [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be here in a minute, and Opposition Members can tell her that.
If and when the community charge is introduced, moving will make little difference, because the charge will be equal and level throughout the country.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent a constituency of 2,000 square miles, most of them agricultural? Is he further aware that the chairman of my constituency party is a farmer and that he and other farmers have examined carefully the effect of the community charge on their workers? They have calculated that it will be a matter of swings and roundabouts. What workers are being paid now in the way of rates will be offset in their pay. Farmers will end up paying no more, and the workers will be no worse and no better off.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. Every aspect is considered when a farmer discusses wages with his men. The community charge will be part of that.

Agricultural Workers (Wages)

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet trade union representatives to discuss agricultural workers' wages; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Donald Thompson: No, Sir. Such matters are for the independent Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. Grocott: Given the chronic problem of low pay among agricultural workers, where the average wage is about 73 per cent. of comparable jobs in industry, and where excessively long hours are worked, does the Minister agree that in this year's pay round there should be a substantial pay increase for agricultural workers and, most important of all, they should establish a 35-hour week?

Mr. Thompson: The average wage for agricultural workers is about £146, including overtime. The matters of detail are for the Agricultural Wages Board and the unions to negotiate.

Mr. Boswell: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that it is not the Government's policy to introduce a prices and incomes policy for farm workers?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister aware that over 11,000 farm workers' families receive family income supplement, and that if the scheme were fully implemented the figure would double? Does this not prove that agricultural wages are far too low?

Mr. Thompson: It proves the effectiveness of family income supplement. The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman include people who are self-employed and a large number of people in the fishing industry.

Conservation Headlands

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on conservation headlands, as pioneered by the cereals and gamebirds research project.

Mr. Gummer: The work of the cereals and gamebirds research project is a useful development in the management of cereals land and has made a valuable contribution to our thinking on environmentally sensitive areas. I am delighted that we have been able to incorporate the project's techniques in the management prescription for the Brecklands environmentally sensitive area.

Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, not least because the chairman of the cereals and gamebirds research project is a constituent of mine. I am glad that his work is duly acknowledged. I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the proposition that the most positive role should be found for conservation headlands within the extensification regulations, Community schemes and any other set-aside programme that may be envisaged.

Mr. Gummer: Yes, I am keen to support what has already been pioneered by Mr. Oliver-Bellasis. I hope that we can consider some of the proposals,, as we are considering those put forward by the Nature Conservancy Council in the Brecklands scheme. I hope that we can show how the headlands can make a real contribution to the improvement of the environment.

Sir Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend's interest in conservation headlands is very much appreciated, but does he agree that, on the basis of existing knowledge, there is no other known system in respect of arable fields which has more beneficial results for wild flowers, insect s, birds and other forms of wildlife? Will he therefore continue to encourage the introduction of conservation headlands?

Mr. Gummer: Yes, there is no doubt that the Game Conservancy Council does much more research into this than anyone else. We welcome its proposals and hope that the experiement in the Brecklands will be successful. If it is, we can consider its extension elsewhere. I hope that we shall also consider the other proposals, because they might provide an additional armoury and another way of implementing my hon. Friend's proposal to bring wildlife back to parts of the country which have long been denuded of it.

Set-aside Scheme

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions in the Agriculture Council on the European Community's proposed set-aside scheme.

Mr. MacGregor: The Council has recently considered proposals for an enlarged set-aside scheme for arable land. Certain issues remain to be settled, but the German presidency has now accepted, as we insisted, that a set-aside scheme should be complementary to stabilisers, and not a substitute for them.

Mr. Davies: What arguments will the Minister use to the Prime Minister to endorse the Commission's proposals to pay farmers to do nothing?

Mr. MacGregor: I must repeat what was said to the hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend earlier. The hon. Gentleman is doing the interest of the countryside no good by pursuing this line. It is not a question of paying farmers for doing nothing. In set-aside proposals there will be arrangements, through codes of practice with the Countryside Commission and others, particularly in the wider set-aside which we are discussing in the Community, for considering the conservation and environmental aspects of any set-aside proposal. It is important that everyone should recognise that there is a cost to a farmer for managing his land, even if it is not growing crops. The set-aside payments acknowledge that.

Mr. Curry: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is important to resist the pressure to weaken the set-aside programme by allowing what is known as green fallowing, because if that happens on an extensive scale and without the strictest controls we shall simply be transferring the problem from one sector to another and building up even greater problems in the livestock sector?

Mr. MacGregor: There are mixed views about green fallowing. Obviously it has environmental benefits but equally, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, unless we get the system right there will be serious implications for, and effects on, livestock producers in other areas, and for overproduction. I have pressed those points during our discussions on green fallowing in the European Community. If that is accepted as part of set-aside, it should be optional on member states, which must be able to make up their own minds. I know that the National Farmers Union is worried about green fallowing, for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the equivalent of the set-aside scheme paying workers to watch lathes, brush them down and oil them? When one puts aside all the jargon, is not the effect of the scheme that we are paying farmers £150 per acre to watch grass grow?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point. As I think he accepts, we first need to deal with the surplus production in the Community. That means that more land must come out of agricultural production. That land is visited by millions of our fellow citizens who want to see an attractive countryside, and not one set down to scrub, bracken and defoliation. There is an important environmental aspect in the set-aside scheme. It is of interest to us all that the land should look attractive.

Fish Landings (Newlyn)

Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of fish landed by British vessels at Newlyn from January to October 1987.

Mr. Gummer: The answer is £11,926,831.

Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those who turned Newlyn into the top port in England and Wales as far as the value of fish landings are concerned, during that period? Does he agree that the figure that he has just quoted gives the lie to the myth that is constantly spread, that the fishing industry in Cornwall is declining? It is not. It is booming and flourishing.

Mr. Gummer: We are impressed by the way in which Newlyn has reacted to the problems of the shortage of fish.

Fishermen in Newlyn have not only caught what is there, but have marketed it most efficiently. I hope that some of the other ports in the country will learn from Newlyn and from the other successful and go-ahead ports which have made that free enterprise part of the economy such a success.

Trade Concessions

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of any current trade concessions that exist between the EEC and Eastern European countries for food and drink products.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Romania and Yugoslavia, together with many non-Eastern European countries, benefit from reduced rates of duty on some food and drink products under the Community's generalised scheme of preferences. Yugoslavia, like many other Mediterranean countries, also benefits from a co-operation agreement with the EC.

Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend give assurances that over the longer term those arrangements will be phased out and that our citizens and farmers will not be disadvantaged vis-a-vis those Eastern European countries?

Mr. Thompson: I cannot give an assurance that the arrangements will be phased out. The arrangements are complicated and voluminous. All sorts of countries, for all sorts of reasons, benefit.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Litherland. No. 14.

Mr. Cryer: My name is Cryer.

Mr. Speaker: I know. The hon. Gentleman has been called once before.

Food Prices

Mr. Ralph Howell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the rise in food prices since 1979; what has been the rise in prices generally; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average annual increase in food prices in the period October 1974 to May 1979; what were the comparable figures for the period May 1979 to December 1987; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Between May 1979 and December 1987 the average annual rate of increase in food prices was 5·8 per cent., while the increase for the all-items retail prices index was 7·8 per cent. The current annual rates are 3·7 per cent. for both food prices and the all-items index.

Mr. Howell: In view of my hon. Friend's reply, and because consumer expenditure on food since 1979 has fallen from 21 to 15·6 per cent., farm incomes are at their second lowest level since the war and farm assets have fallen to 66 per cent. of what they were in 1979. In view of that, does my hon. Friend agree that there can be no justification in any call for lower producer prices?

Mr. Thompson: The consumers benefit from all that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We now have a very steady food price policy which benefits all of us and which in turn, because of its steadiness, must benefit the farmer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Instead of jacking up land prices by subsidising unused land, why not let the market operate, let land prices fall and the cost of producing food fall in the long term?

Mr. Thompson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be in favour of that, or in favour of turning his constituency into derelict areas of docks and thistles. However, they would be in favour of steady food prices.

Pig Industry

Mr. Jack: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the United Kingdom pig industry.

Mr. Donald Thompson: As a result of pressure from the United Kingdom and other member states, the pigmeat management committee has recently decided to reintroduce a scheme of aids for private storage and this should help to strengthen the market. Our pig producers are also concerned about the monetary compensatory amounts payable on imports of pigmeat. My commitment and that of my right hon. Friends is to see MCAs abolished in this sector. There are widely differing views within the EC on this issue and it will not be easy to achieve.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his very full answer and his letters, which clearly show his understanding of the problems of Lancashire pig farmers. Will he look at two things? The first is the commutation of further payments to the Aujeszky's disease fund. Secondly, will he support the initiative taken by Back Benchers to write to supermarkets and butchery chains to encourage further consumption of home-produced pork?

Mr. Thompson: The Aujeszky's disease fund is committed on an annual and regular basis to the banks and it would be impossible to discontinue those payments until the overdraft has been paid off. I am very glad to hear of the initiative of my hon. Friend and his Back-Bench colleagues in writing to supermarkets and other places asking them to promote pork, and I shall do all I can to encourage that to happen.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister aware that in the Grampian region, where the bulk of Scottish pig production is centred, many pig producers are facing bankruptcy? What immediate hope can he hold out to them of eliminating unfair competition from Denmark and Holland? Will he look at subsidised feedstuffs for the pig industry?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Lady will know that we reintroduced private storage aid, not without a struggle in the Community. We are looking at the use of imported cereal substitutes on the continent to see how they affect the market.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister remember the plight of pig farmers in Northern Ireland when he is giving consideration to what steps he will take to help the pig

industry across the United Kingdom, and will he keep in mind the representations that have been made to him from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Thompson: Northern Ireland and Scotland are, of course, very important in the pig industry, and I shall give special consideration to those areas. In fact, I have already been in conversation with the Ministers responsible.

Agricultural Wages

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present average agricultural wage.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Most recently available figures show that for the year ending September 1987 average gross weekly earnings for whole-time adult men were £146.

Mr. McCartney: Is the Minister aware that some of the poorest paid workers in this country are facing deregulation of rents in the private sector and in rural areas? Because of that, about 40 per cent. of their disposable income will be spent on rent increases. Is it not a disgrace that the Government are preparing to do that to the rural poor? Will the Minister make a statement, saying that the Ministry supports this attempt to deregulate rents in rural areas?

Mr. Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. For example, 40 per cent. of farm workers live in accommodation provided by their employer and pay little or no rent, which should be taken into account when considering the £146 average wage. There will be little difference under the new regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February 1988.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Prime Minister accept, from those of us who were with the nurses at their demonstration yesterday, that they had the vast, visible and vocal support of the public? As long as wards are closed and operations cancelled, in London and elsewhere, the Health Service is not serving the patient. What is at fault is not the right hon. Lady's familiar statistics, but her judgment of the country's need.

The Prime Minister: Conservative Members and patients are grateful to those nurses who did not go on strike, who stayed to carry out their duties, looking after their patients, and who are concerned that about 400 operations will have been postponed because of the activities of this week. I find it astonishing that some nurses should go on strike when a pay review body is considering their claim. The review body was granted to them because they, like some other professions, such as the


armed forces and the police, cannot go on strike. We felt that they should have this special review body to make its own recommendations on nurses' pay.

Mr. Ward: Given the Attorney-General's announcement yesterday about the inability to withdraw charitable status from the Unification Church, will my right hon. Friend give her support to an urgent review of the law on charitable status?

The Prime Minister: I read in great detail the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I know that some people were disappointed, but it is difficult to get a precise definition of charities suitable to the circumstances. I shall pass on what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend will be very much aware that it is easy to analyse problems in this sphere; it is very difficult to draft something that is precisely suitable for what is wanted. I shall consider the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Kinnock: Following the statements by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday, and other statements and counter-statements by Members of the Government over recent weeks, there is considerable public confusion about the Government's policy on nurses' pay. — [Interruption.] In an effort to clear that confusion, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government's submission to the pay body is published?

The Prime Minister: No. It is not customary for that submission to be published. It is customary for each side to give its submission to the other, and that is why the Government's submission was made available to the unions. It is very strange that when these papers are made available to the other side they somehow find their way into public perception. But that is not our practice. There is no confusion in Government policy over setting up a pay review body or about the way in which we have dealt with it. That is a matter of fact.

Mr. Kinnock: It is not commonplace for the presidents of the royal colleges, or for the British Medical Association, to have to take the kind of stand that they have taken to in recent months. Nor is it commonplace for nurses to be driven into the protest action that they have been taking. As the staff side submissions have been made public for many weeks, why will the Prime Minister not make it clear where the Government stand? Will she confirm the report yesterday in a reputable journal, Nursing Times, that the Government have submitted that
the total resources now provided for health authorities in 1988–1989 will be expected to cover all pay and price increases.
Is that true?

The Prime Minister: The pay review body will consider the proposals put to it from both sides. It will consider the new structure, which is vital, and which has been agreed. The review body will put figures to that. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was not a review body for nurses in his time. May I also point out that the way in which his Government dealt with the review body proposals—[Interruption.] This point is material. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the way in which his Government dealt with the review body proposals for doctors' pay. May I remind him that in 1976 and 1977 the then Government did implement the doctors and dentists review body proposals in full, but when in 1976 inflation

was 16·5 per cent., the review body recommendation was 2·2 per cent. It protested to the Government about the restraint measures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."]—on the pay system and structures, which were not compatible with the duties that it had to carry out. There are no such restraints on the nurses pay review body.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any strike action by Ford workers following their rejection of the recent pay offer will imperil their jobs and many thousands of jobs throughout the country among people working in the motor components manufacturing business, including nearly 300 of my constituents? Does she agree that the current wave of strikes, if continued, will seriously damage Britain's new and hard-won reputation for having kicked the strike habit?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that strikes put the jobs of the strikers in jeopardy. They also jeopardise the jobs of those who supply components and other materials to the factories. If the latters' jobs are in jeopardy, they should blame the Ford workers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that the reason why nurses, doctors, other Health Service staff and patients were on the streets yesterday was that top salaries have risen 30 per cent. and manual workers' wages have gone down by 6 per cent. under this Government? Does she realise, further, that they were also protesting at the suggestion that nurses might only not get more money in the Budget, but the health authorities may be obliged to pay all the money that is awarded? Does the Prime Minister not think that, just once, the public tide might be right and that Queen Canute might be wrong?

The Prime Minister: I have indicated in reply to a previous question that under a previous Government, which the Liberal party supported, the doctors' and dentists' review body was put under substantial restraints over what it could recommend, as a result of which it recommended pay increases that were greatly below the increase in inflation. That is what the hon. Gentleman supported. Under this Government the increases for doctors and nurses have been substantially above the increases in inflation. Labour put down doctors' and nurses' pay by something like 20 per cent. in real terms and the Tories have put up nurses' and doctors' pay by about 30 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively. That is an excellent record and that is what the hon. Gentleman cannot bear.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of support for her insistence that reform of EEC funding should depend upon a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? Does she agree that allowing the EEC a fourth resource—a percentage on GDP rather than VAT — would make EEC spending less, rather than more, responsible, would increase the burdens on the British taxpayer and should be firmly resisted?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the key to the European Council meeting is whether all


member countries are really prepared to tackle the matter of surplus commodities, in particular wheat, barley and oil seeds. They are a great drain upon the financial budget. We must tackle those, and every country must do so.
With regard to how the budget is financed, a fourth resource, related to GNP, would alter the way in which the money was raised, and it is possible that some countries with a rising GNP are not paying enough. We shall insist that the Fontainebleau abatement continues. We do not wish either to gain or lose on that abatement.

Q.3 Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware of inefficiency at the top of the DHSS? Is she aware that the chief executive officer of the Rochdale local authority wrote to ask for a public inquiry into the running of the Rochdale health authority, and seven months later he was told that his original letter was lost? Is she further aware that I asked for another, different type of equally involved inquiry, and that 17 weeks later, when I asked the Leader of the House to take up the matter, I was told that my letter, too, had been lost? Is she aware that the cynical name of the Department now is the "Department of Stealth and Total Obscurity"? Will she investigate the inefficiency of this Department at the top level?

The Prime Minister: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get a reply to his letter. It does not seem to have prevented considerable increases in cash coining to Rochdale health authority—[interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the cash allocation to the Rochdale health authority went up 10 per cent.— [Interruption.] —in cash terms and capital was up by £6·3 million. [Interruption.]

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend join the Royal College of Nursing in condemning strikes within the NHS, and remind the Leader of the Opposition that during the two most recent major stoppages in the Health Service, in 1979 and 1982, on both occasions the effect was to increase the waiting lists in hospitals by more than 100,000? Is this what the Labour party means by its concern for patient care?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I join my hon. Friend. The nurses were given a special review body because the Royal College of Nursing did not go on strike. It was noticeable yesterday that the RCN nurses stayed at their posts. Nurses who belonged to other unions—not very many— went on strike. Nevertheless, we think that the activities

this week by a few of the nurses will have delayed about 400 operations. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen, as well as Conservative Members, would be concerned about that, but lion. Gentlemen seem to be more interested in having strikes than in the welfare of the patients.

Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Carlile: What is the right hon. Lady's view of the shocking fact that officers as senior as superintendent in the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been held to have attempted to pervert the course of justice? Does she agree that nothing less than the resignation of the Chief Constable will satisfy national and international concern about the Stalker-Sampson inquiry?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already dealt fully in his statement of 25 January with the question of criminal proceedings. I have nothing to add to what he said. The hon. and learned Gentleman is also aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told the House that the next step is for the findings of the Stalker-Sampson inquiry to be considered in the context of possible disciplinary proceedings, and he has promised a statement on matters within his responsibility concerning procedures and control within the RUC.

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Birmingham about 5,000 youngsters sat their entrance test for the King Edward foundation grammer school? Is this not ample evidence that parents have a high regard for academic achievements within the schooling system, in schools which the Labour party would have destroyed many years ago? Is not the great Education Reform Bill an attempt to develop those academic schools throughout the length and breadth of the land?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Parents are always anxious to get their children into good schools which not only serve the pupils who go to them but help to raise standards in their own areas and all over the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Motion on the Local Government Act (Police and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities) Precepts Limitation Order.
TUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY — Debate on a motion on televising the proceedings of the House of Commons.
Motions on the Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority), (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority) and (Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority) Orders.
WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Completion of remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Motion on the Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order.
THURSDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.
Debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Kinnock: In view of the completely inadequate performance of the Government in the wake of the cover-up over the Stalker-Sampson report, when will the House have an opportunity to debate the issues raised by the Government's behaviour?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. John Marks, chairman of the British Medical Association, said yesterday:
There is a crisis in the health service and it would be irresponsible not to debate it."?
Does the Leader of the House agree with Dr. Marks, and will he provide a debate in Government time in the near future?
Did the Leader of the House notice that on Monday the Minister for Overseas Development responded to criticisms of the Government's huge cuts in overseas development aid and the demands for a debate on the subject by saying that it could be raised on Thursday afternoon, and that he would be more than happy that there should be such a debate? Can the Leader of the House gratify his hon. Friend and the Opposition by making speedy arrangements to provide such a debate in Government time?
Can the Leader of the House give us a date for the long-awaited debate on the social fund?
We are to have a statement later today on the Government's policy towards the Inner London education authority. It will mean a fundamental change in the policy put forward at the general election by the Tory party and in the policy presented in the Education Reform Bill, which is currently going through the House. From the various press reports it appears that there is reason to suppose that the change is to be so great as to warrant a completely separate Bill. Will the Leader of the House tell

us whether he proposes to continue with the current arrangement, which would show a completely disreputable attitude towards the proceedings of the House, or whether he will at the very least provide the House with a motion that will give hon. Members the opportunity to decide whether a separate ILEA Bill should be presented to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: The Leader of the Opposition asked me five questions. The first was about the Northern Ireland situation. As I told the right hon. Gentleman last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement to the House on the matter. I think that is the best way to proceed initially. I recognise the concern, and of course we shall have to consider a debate. However, I would prefer to wait until after the statement has been made by my right hon. Friend.
With regard to the National Health Service, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, a debate took place recently on an Opposition motion, which was, I think, helpful to the House. I recognise that we shall have to come back to that matter, and indeed we shall do so, but I cannot give a time for a debate in the immediate future.
As for overseas development, I was present when my hon. Friend answered questions on Monday and I heard what he said. I am looking at the matter but I cannot provide a date for a debate in the immediate future.
Dealing with the social fund debate, the right hon. Gentleman raised that question last week. I am looking at this and I hope to be able to announce a debate in the very near future.
With regard to ILEA, of course I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but I recognise the concern about this matter. I made it very clear during the debate on the timetable motion earlier this week that if a new matter of major importance arose we would have urgent discussions through the usual channels to see what would be the best way to proceed. I believe that in what the right hon. Gentleman said there may be the germ of an idea on how best the House could proceed in these matters.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend note that since the debate on the timetable motion on Thursday I have been approached by a number of hon. Members asking me why I have not arranged for a debate on the Procedure Committee reports that have been waiting to be debated for some years? I have had to tell them that it does not rest with me. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could help me out and try to ensure that we have a debate this year, as otherwise we shall be getting much too far through this Session.

Mr. Wakeham: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he requires, but I hope to do rather better than that. I recognise that there are a number of outstanding matters which the House wishes to consider. I am hoping to arrange a debate in the relatively near future. Indeed, I am having discussions through the usual channels about this, because matters of procedure are best dealt with by as much agreement as possible throughout the House.

Mr. James Wallace: Has the Leader of the House read the Official Report for last Thursday, when you, Mr. Speaker, indicated that Scottish hon. Members whom you were unable to call to ask a question on the statement dealing with the Government's


attitude to school closures might well be called in a subsequent debate? Does the Leader of the House intend to have a debate on the prayer in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends dealing with that order?
Secondly, has the Leader of the House had time to consider early-day motions 608 and 609 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn):
[That this House notes that benefit claimants entitled to flat-rate payments to correct the error in the calculation of the retail price index are entitled to an £8·00 payment for each order book they possess, and that therefore people with combined order books for several eligible benefits, including married pensioners, are entitled to only one payment; believes this to be grossly unfair and unnecessarily bureaucratic; recognises that it will cause understandable distress and anger for the thousands of people who possess combined order books for convenience, and considerable embarrassment for the Post Office staff who administer the payments; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to review the payments procedure as a matter of urgency.]
[That this House notes that an estimated 175,000 pensioners claiming the higher rate attendance allowance with combined order books will lose up to £5·00 as a result of the Government's decision to pay a flat-rate payment as compensation to those who lost benefit due to the miscalculation of the retail price index; believes this will cause unnecessary hardship and distress; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reimburse them as a matter of urgency.]
They deal with the situation that has arisen in which supplementary benefit claimants who have one combined book are receiving only one payment of £8 to make up for the error in the retail prices index, whereas those who have two books are getting more than one payment. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is causing considerable distress, irritation and anger in many parts of the country? Will the Government consider this matter with urgency and bring forward a statement showing that they are prepared to retrieve the situation?

Mr. Wakeham: With regard to Scottish schools and the question which the hon. Gentleman asked me last week, I am looking for an opportunity in the near future to debate the prayer that has been tabled against the order.
As to the matter of the retail prices index, I believe that Ministers have made the matter very clear indeed. However, if there is any confusion, I shall look into it and discuss it with my right hon. Friend to see whether there is any way in which the matter can be clarified.

Sir John Farr: Can my right hon. Friend arrange a fairly early debate on a report relating to miscarriages of justice produced by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and published in the 1981–82 Session? It referred to the setting up of an independent review body, as the Committee described it. In view of the serious misgivings about recent appeal court decisions, I believe that it would be very advantageous if we could have a debate on the recommendations of the Select Committee, which have never been debated by the House, before too long.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest. I cannot hold out the opportunity of an early debate, but I shall discuss the matter with the Home Secretary. It

seems to me that the Criminal Justice Bill may provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend to air some of those points.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Given the serious situation and the marked deterioration in industrial relations in the mining industry, does the Leader of the House agree that Ministers should give early and positive consideration to these matters, and that the House should have the opportunity of a relevant debate in the near future?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the matter, but I do not think that I can offer the hon. Gentleman the chance of a debate in the immediate future. No doubt there will be opportunities to discuss it.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that two weeks ago I asked the Government for a statement on meningitis outbreaks in Britain, which are causing great concern? The situation appears to be getting worse. We have no facts and it is time that the Government made a statement on the subject.

Mr. Wakeham: I referred the matter to my right hon. Friend, as I said I would, but if the situation is changing I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend again.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the case of Mrs. Busby, a victim of Opren who is disfigured and to whom sunlight will always be a means of torture? She has been offered £3,000 by Eli Lilly. Her plight reflects no credit on the House. Will the Leader of the House find the time to debate, first, the legal precedent which led to that miserly offer, secondly, the need for a system of challenging those precedents in such cases when a second legal opinion has said that the offer should have been increased eightfold, and, thirdly—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Ashley: —will he consider the need for an entirely new system whereby multinational companies a re compelled to pay fair and swift compensation?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's concern about these matters, but the proposed settlement is entirely a matter between the parties concerned. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further while the matter is still before the courts, but I shall undertake to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Numerous attacks have been made in the House, and outside by Ministers of the Dublin Government, upon certain members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have been suspended for more than a year and a half—a period of great anxiety for those officers and their families. Those allegations and attacks have now been extended to include the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. Those officers cannot reply publicly. May we have a debate on how those officers, who with their colleagues have served Northern Ireland well, can now receive a fair and unprejudiced hearing?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern, but it is important that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should properly consider these matters. When he has considered them he will make a statement to the House. I am sure that that is the best way to proceed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can I press the Leader of the House on that point? When is the statement likely to be made? Today we were informed that the Minister has already made a statement. When will he answer the questions, and when will hon. Members for Northern Ireland be able to join the interrogation and put the case of the people of Northern Ireland? Will it be possible to have a debate in the near future on the concept of national interest and the level at which protection will be provided to those who serve the nation?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern, but I do not believe that I can add anything more, other than to say that I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend who will report to the House as soon as he can.

Mr. Michael Latham: May I first thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to a debate on agriculture, which is much appreciated. With regard to the debate next week about televising the House, will he ensure that either the Government motion or any instructions to a Select Committee will make specific reference to the fact that demonstrations in the Strangers' Gallery must in no circumstances be shown?

Mr. Wakeham: It is our intention that the debate should take place on early-day motion 15 that has already been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). Of course, the important points that my hon. Friend makes are very relevant to the debate that we shall have.
[That this House approves in principle the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television; and believes that a select committee should be appointed to consider the implementation of such an experiment and to make recommendations.]

Mr. Tony Banks: Let me draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 600.
[That this House supports in principle the televising of proceedings of the House for an experimental period of six months; calls for such televising to be conducted on a round-the-clock basis and on a dedicated television channel funded by monies voted by Parliament.]
Will he tell me whether the motion that we shall debate on Tuesday will provide for the setting up of a separate television channel for the broadcasting of Parliament on a round-the-clock basis, thus avoiding the problems of editorialising that concern so many hon. Members on both sides of the House? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the motion can be amended to include such a provision?

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the motion can be amended if the hon. Gentleman does not think that it reflects the point of view that he wishes to express. However, it is not a matter for me which amendments are selected by Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the point of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman in the early-day motion would be perfectly relevant to the debate, and could be discussed then. I see a number of practical difficulties in his suggestion, but that is a subject for next week's debate.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be an alarming

difference between the legal definition of "charity" and the public perception of it? May we have an early debate on the subject?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what my hon. Friend has said. I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that she would be discussing the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I think that that is probably the best way to proceed in the initial period.

Mr. Michael Foot: On the question of the debate on the televising of Parliament, can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister has yet made up her mind on the subject, and how many Tory Members will switch their votes according to what she tells them to do?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not usually talk about voting or whipping matters from this Dispatch Box. Traditionally, such issues as this have been on a free vote. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as always, has an open mind on the subject, but I think that most people probably know her views.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement to the House about the proposal by the Department of Trade and Industry to move the Patent Office from London to Newport, south Wales? It should be borne in mind that the matter has not been discussed by the many industries and organisations that would be involved, and that smaller businesses would suffer immensely from the resulting inconvenience and additional cost.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend, and ask whether he thinks it appropriate to make a statement. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) might care to raise the subject on an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Greville Janner: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 613? The motion is signed by 129 hon. Members from all parties. It arises from the death of my constituent Billy Walker, aged 11, who swallowed the top of a pen and was the 11th child to die in that way.
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to investigate the provision in schools of Bic pens, with separate tops, of the type that caused the death of Billy Walker of Leicester; further calls on the Government to institute research into the safety of pens provided for and to schoolchildren; and expresses its profound sympathy to the parents and family of Billy Walker.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, together with me, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs was good enough to see the boy's parents yesterday, and that he has stated that manufacturers and suppliers of unsafe pens are liable to be prosecuted now? May we have a statement from him to warn manufacturers such as Bic which still refuse even to have the decency and compassion to talk to us about their position?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly share the sympathy expressed in the motion tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman and a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Government have carried out investigations into the dangers of pen tops. Following completion of the research, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a press notice advising parents and others about those dangers, and made the report's findings available to United Kingdom manufacturers and importers. Suppliers are aware of their responsibilities, and are working towards the introduction of safer pen tops. Local education authorities are responsible for the issue of pens and similar items to schools, and the Department of Education and Science will consider whether any separate notification of authorities about the dangers of pen tops is needed.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), is my right hon. Friend aware that, after yesterday's announcement of the decision not to proceed with action against the Moonies, interest in the Government's response to last year's Woodfield report, which recommended a strengthening of the Charity Commission has been greatly increased? Will he urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider as speedily as possible the implications of the decision on the Moonies, so that the House can have an opportunity, as the other place has recently done, of debating the matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and, as I have said, I shall refer the matter urgently to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to examine early-day motion 574, signed by a number of hon. Members, on the Government's golden share in Britoil?
[That this House notes the assurances given to the House on 31st March 1982 and 1st April 1982, Official Report, columns 333, 334 and 450, by both Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Gray of Contin, the then Minister of State for Energy, that the 'golden share' would offer effective safeguards for Britoil's independence; questions whether this has been shown to be the case; and calls for a full debate on the guidance given to the House by Mr. Chancellor and the noble Lord on the efficacy of the 'golden share' provisions when they were seeking honourable Members' approval for the privatisation of BNOC.]
Is it not time for a full debate on that issue so that the House can decide whether it was misled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assurances of Britoil's independence, freely given in 1982? In the light of the Government's announcement that the bid is not to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, such a debate would also provide the opportunity to examine the double standards inherent in an industrial policy which protects Britain's largest company, British Petroleum, and will not even consider the protection of Scotland's largest company, Britoil.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a private notice question on that subject as recently as 1 February and a debate at this stage would not be the best use of parliamentary time.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has my right hon. Friend seen various press reports to the effect that hon. Members may attempt to filibuster to stop the Abortion (Amendment) Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) completing its

Committee stage? Will he give us an assurance that if that filibuster continues, he will find Government time for the Bill in Committee so that this exceptionally important business of the House is not decided and stopped by a small minority of hon. Members?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, but that is a hypothetical question. I have seen no evidence of what he suggests. However, I am sure that the House would deprecate any such misuse of procedure if the Bill's Committee stage were delayed in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Foreign Office to explain next week why, since 2 January, the British embassy in Islamabad has been refusing permission for a 16-year-old constituent of mine, Nasreen Akhtar, to return to her home in Bradford and to her school? Is he aware that, despite telexes sent to the embassy by the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and despite letters from me to the girl, she was refused permission on 4 and 27 January to return home and she is being denied schooling and reunification with her family? Can he explain that extraordinary refusal by British authorities in Islamabad, and do something urgently to enable this girl to return home and to her school?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no knowledge whether the hon. Gentleman has been given all the information that he needs to make the statement that he did, but I shall refer the matter to the Home Office immediately after I have finished answering questions and ask somebody to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On the Stalker affair and its disturbing ramifications, will my right hon. Friend understand that we need not just a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, important though that is, but a full-scale parliamentary debate? Will he understand that that debate must include an opportunity to give proper parliamentary scrutiny to the Attorney-General's definition of where the national interest lies in this matter? On that matter, will my right hon. Friend persuade the Attorney-General to explain his curious inactivity in issuing any kind of civil injunctions on, or taking any kind of criminal proceedings against, the breach of the duty of confidentiality by Mr. Stalker in his articles in the Daily Express, which makes a curious contrast of double standards with the injunctions issued on all other breaches of confidentiality?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend puts a point of view persuasively, but I do not think that I shall shift from my earlier position. I believe that the first stage in this matter is to have a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Harold McCusker: The right hon. Gentleman said that we would have that statement as soon as possible. May I press him on what he means by "as soon as possible"? Is he aware that we have already been waiting for two weeks to discuss those matters, in which time foreign politicians have been given an opportunity that has been denied us to press the Secretary of State on them? Is he further aware that, in the past two weeks, men have been identified, convicted and perhaps condemned to death without a single word being said in their favour and without their side of the story being given?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great concern about these matters, but I know that my right hon. Friend will make his statement as soon as he can.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Central to our constitution is the idea of the rule of law and the supremacy of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend pay heed to what is being said and organise as a matter of some urgency the attendance of the Attorney-General to justify his extraordinary view of the world—that the murder of a 16-year-old fellow citizen and the perversion of the course of justice by police officers in part of the United Kingdom are lesser matters than the supremacy of the rule of law? The House would like to look at the judgment of the Attorney-General in terms of the public interest and of that which we hold to be extremely important.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has a duty to discharge. In my view, he discharged his duty in a proper and effective manner. He came to the House and made a statement and that is the proper course of action.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to make a statement, will the Leader of the House put one other point to him? Will he ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why Mr. Stalker is not being prosecuted under the existing Official Secrets Act or, indeed, under the new Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Aldridge, Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) which has in general been approved by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Wakeham: Matters of prosecution are not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rees: Yes, they are.

Mr. Wakeham: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows more about Northern Ireland than me. I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend, but I am not in a position to add anything to what I have said.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we were most impressed by his imaginative, guarded and diplomatic answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who asked about the future of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill? However, it was hardly an answer to the question that he was asked. Will he assure the House that if what is now hypothetical ceases to be hypothetical the Government will ensure that there is a proper debate on the subject?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. — and if I may say so learned — Friend puts another question to me. I shall not answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments performs a useful purpose? That purpose is thwarted when orders such as the two orders to limit the precept on Manchester and West Yorkshire are debated before the Joint Committee has had time to consider memoranda. We have asked the relevant Departments why they tried to bounce the Joint Committee into accepting the instruments without adequate time. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that on board and make suitable adjustments to the business next week?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also remind the Department of Transport that we have still not had a statement on the Settle-Carlisle railway? Many people are extremely concerned that the Department of Transport is trying to make the local authorities a scapegoat for the closure, and the local authorities will not accept that.

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to what I said about the railway last week. I shall look into the other matter to see whether I can assist, but I cannot undertake to change the business for next week.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at the work of Standing Committee C to establish whether what has been suggested in the press is indeed happening? Does he recognise that if there is a filibuster it will be thwarting the will of the House, which voted for that Bill? We should at least have an opportunity to ensure that the will of the House is fully debated and to show people outside that we have reached a conclusion one way or the other.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend have so far been realised. I believe that the House would deprecate such a misuse of procedure if that happened.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: A week on Monday, the Leader of the House said we shall be debating agriculture. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that he will ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that that debate will not be used as a green light for the Government to give the go-ahead for the set-aside scheme for farmers, which will allow them to get up to £150 an acre for allowing land to remain fallow? Is that not a disgrace at a time when agricultural wages are at an all-time low, relatively speaking, when agricultural workers cannot get a 35-hour week and the National Health Service is in tatters? Here is a scheme to give the farming community £150 an acre and yet a third of the world is starving.

Mr. Wakeham: The debate that I have arranged for Monday 15 February was at the request of a number of hon. Gentlemen. It seems to me that the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are better applied to that debate than they are to business questions.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am not going to ask my right hon. Friend to give us any specific assurances about the Bill to which reference has been made by some of my hon. Friends because I know him well enough to know that he will do his duty with honour and I trust him. However, my right hon. Friend should note the intense feeling that exists among the majority of hon. Members who believe that efforts to frustrate, once again, a Bill that is concerned with a deep moral principle, held by many people in this country, should not be allowed as a result of dirty tricks.

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly recognise the strength of my right hon. Friend's comments, but there is nothing further that I can say at this moment.

Mr. Chris Mullin: May I underline the point made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) about the widespread disquiet following the recent


decision of the Court of Appeal, which has implications for the entire criminal justice system, the forensic service and our relations with other countries? I request the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on this and related matters, preferably, as suggested by the hon. Member for Harborough, under the general heading of miscarriages of justice. That debate should have particular reference to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee published six years ago, which recommended that an independent review tribunal should be set up to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice. Not one of the report's recommendations has been implemented even though there was a Tory majority on that Committee. May we have a debate on this subject as soon as possible?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the independence of the judiciary is one of the greatest safeguards of the freedoms of people in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) raised this matter and I said that I would refer it to the Home Secretary and I intend to do so.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about the continuing loss of jobs of registered dock workers? Last week, the Government put aside £7 million to add to the redundancy fund. Is this not the right time to have a debate on this subject so that we can get a consensus in the House on the best way forward for the registered dock workers' scheme?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that a debate in this House would necessarily produce a consensus. I do not see an opportunity for finding time for a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not an affront to every Member of the House when the Prime Minister, as she did today, comes to the Dispatch Box and reads a very carefully phrased answer to a question on the Stalker affair with the clear objective of blocking questions on the Order Paper? Does the Leader of the House understand that every Member of the House of Commons, irrespective of political persuasion, would wish to deprecate such activity because, on occasions, it may militate against their particular interests? Will the Leader of the House make representations to the Prime Minister and ask her to answer questions and not to use that blocking device, which many of us believe that she intends to use over the next few days?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman could ask questions as intelligently as my right hon. Friend answers them, the standard would go up considerably.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that many Conservative Members are extremely conscious of the extraordinarily dangerous and difficult job that members of the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment must carry out? Any discussion of the Stalker affair or any of the other issues should include our recognition of the dangers that those officers and their families face.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I believe that it is relevant to the issue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to curtail business questions. I will call the hon. Gentlemen who have been rising, but we must then move on.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House reflected on the following early-day motions relating to Westland: No. 228,
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prune Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
No. 253,
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
No. 272,
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Britian himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved … He (Mr. Britton) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
No. 273,
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon


Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
No. 286,
[That this House notes that, in the book "Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal", on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that "Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and the right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
No. 622,
[That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbegin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS "Conqueror"; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.]
and No. 627,
[That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench Members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of candour about what they have done.]
Could the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the question of which I gave his Office notice, namely, the inquiry that is purported to be taking place into leaks from the Department of Trade and Industry at the behest of Sir Brian Hayes? Should there not be a statement next week to suggest that Sir Brian Hayes might cast the mote out of his eye, so involved was he in the leak inquiry into the selective leaking of a Law Officer's letter, rather than to enter into any kind of major inquiry in his Department? Apparently, when leaks seem to suit senior civil servants and senior members of the Government there is no inquiry, but when leaks are awkward there is an inquiry. What is just in that?

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing further to say about the early-day motions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but

I recognise that he referred the matter of his question to my Office. The memorandum from Sir Brian Hayes was to explain to all staff the importance of respecting confidential information and was entirely consistent with the guidance note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers that was circulated by Sir Robert Armstrong in December. It did not, contrary to the suggestion in the Daily Telegraph, announce a leak inquiry.

Mr Frank Dobson: "It says here".

Mr. Wakeham: I have just got that information and therefore, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has noted, I read it out for greater accuracy.

Mr. James Pawsey: May I return again to the subject that has been raised by four of my hon. Friends — the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which is currently going through the House? If that Bill is frustrated by activities in Committee, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that any similar Bill introduced to the House in a later Session will have Government time?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend widens somewhat the hypothetical nature of the inquiries he is making, but I still do not believe that I can answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. David Winnick: In relation to some other questions that have been asked today, does the Leader of the House recognise that the absence of any parliamentary scrutiny of the security services is a blot on our democracy? As for the blocking of questions, there is no way that such questions can be tabled, let alone answered. Does the Leader of the House intend to let the situation rest as it is or does he recognise, as other democracies have done in Western Europe, that the security services should be subject to some form of parliamentary control?

Mr. Wakeham: What I do recognise is that there is more than one view in the House on what should prevail in these matters. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in the minority and that the Government's view is that of the majority.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend, if he is considering granting time for a debate on the Birmingham bomb trial appeal, recognise that many Conservative Members believe that the appeal was a thorough investigation and that a fair judgment was reached at its end? We are in no good position to judge, having heard bits of the evidence, what three senior judges can decide, having seen all of the evidence in the case.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly; I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Has the Leader of the House yet had an opportunity to examine the report of the Select Committee on Energy which was placed in the Vote Office one hour and 10 minutes ago? It concerns the need for a debate in the House on new Statutory Instrument 218 governing the rules for public inquiries into new power stations and overhead lines. In the report's words:
As far as the House is concerned we recommend that the business managers should ensure that a debate takes place on the prayer at present tabled as an early day motion".


Will the right hon. Gentleman look at early-day motion 497, which has been signed by 78 hon. Members, and the prayer in early-day motion 499, which has been signed by 68 hon. Members? The two motions are on the same topic and require the House to examine the new rules that severely constrain the rights of objectors, and ask, in particular, that that should be done well before the Hinkley Point public inquiry takes place so that the objectors can know how much their rights have been reduced since the Sizewell inquiry.
[That this House notes that S.I., 1987, No. 2182, regulating the procedure for tribunals and inquiries under the Electricity Act 1957 and relating specifically to electricity generating stations and overhead lines, was laid before Parliament on 18th December 1987 with an enforcement date of 14th January 1988, notes that these regulations will severely restrict the rights and opportunities of objectors to raise issues of public concern such as energy policy, public health and safety, including reactor safety and environmental impact, local and/or national economics and national security, and calls for the date of implementation of these regulations to he delayed pending the result of a full parliamentary debate in government time.]
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I., 1987 No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.]

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there is concern about this matter in the House. The question of a debate is best left for discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Ian Gow: If there is to be a debate on matters that arose out of the Attorney-General's statement on Monday of last week, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some Conservative Members will want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the integrity and judgment of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General?

Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. I do not anticipate a debate on the decision of the Attorney-General; when the Secretary of State makes his statement we shall see how to proceed from there. I agree with my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland are men of the highest standing.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Does the Leader of the House recall that, during the replies to questions on the statement on the future of the Crown Suppliers, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was particularly evasive to right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition about which parts of the Crown Suppliers would remain in the public sector? In view of that, will he arrange for another statement on the matter to be made by the Secretary of State, because Opposition Members are concerned about not getting the full facts about this undesirable, unwanted and outrageous privatisation proposal?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement yesterday about the parts of the Crown Suppliers that are to be sold, making it clear that those with security implications would not be. I do not think there is anything else to add at this stage.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Steel.

Mr. David Steel: rose—

Mr. Dave Nellist: He has not been standing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is the leader of the Liberal party — [Laughter.] Order. All Back Benchers who have been standing will be called. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was here when I said that I would call those who had been standing. It would be helpful if he stood a little earlier in the proceedings.

Mr. Steel: The point I want to raise arises directly from the reply that the Leader of the House has just given. I sat through business questions, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me.
The integrity of the Attorney-General is not the issue that concerns the House. What worries the House is that the Attorney-General's decision and the withdrawal of Mr. Stalker from the inquiry raise the suspicion that the definition of national security is being extended to cover Government embarrassment. That is what concerns hon. Members on both sides. An internal disciplinary inquiry will not be enough: there must be further discussion of the matter in the House.

Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement of last Monday, but I repeat that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement on these matters in the near future.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Leader of the House aware that the rate-capping order against ILEA, which is down for business on Wednesday, involves a savage attack to the extent of 15 per cent, on the resources of London education? There is no need to bring in the order next week. More time should be allowed for the parents, pupils and people of London to debate the issue, and for the Secretary of State to come to his senses. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw next Wednesday's order, or, if he persists in going ahead with it, will he allow more than an hour and a half so that the Opposition can expose these savage attacks on education in London?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot undertake to accept what the hon. Gentleman proposes, but I shall have discussions through the usual channels if that will help.

Mr. Nellist: Referring to the statement made by the Leader of the House three quarters of an hour ago, when will a debate take place in Government time on the deterioration of the National Health Service? Is he prepared to stand idly by and see the frustration of working people and trade unionists throughout the country building up pressure for a one-day general strike to defend the Health Service? Before that debate finally takes place, as it will inevitably have to, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Services, so that when he comes to make his contribution at the Dispatch Box he will try to lift the proceedings from the patronising level of last night's Tory party broadcast, and, instead of trying to do a five-minute impression of Geoffrey out of "Rainbow", live up to the fact that he is a Cabinet Minister in charge of £22 billion a year?

Mr. Wakeham: The only encouraging thing to say about that is that the hon. Gentleman listened to the broadcast last night; I thought it was very good. I shall certainly not be more forthcoming to the hon. Gentleman than I was earlier to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 547 about the Yorkshire heart hospital, and to the statement by the cardiothoracic surgeon, Duncan Walker, who said that people on the waiting list are dying? May we have an early debate on what is happening with these operations? This week I have had a representation about a young constituent whose heart operation was cancelled last week and whose medical condition is deteriorating every day.
[That this House notes that at the Yorkshire Regional Cardiothoracic Centre, Killingbeck Hospital, Leeds, only six of a 12 bed intensive care unit can be used for heart operations; further notes the comments of Dr. Martin Muers, Chairman of the Hospital Consultants' Committee, that 'we do not do enough heart operations up to Department of Health and Social Services guidelines' (Telegraph and Argus 18th January) and that the Consultants' Committee has sent an urgent letter to the regional health authority signed by three heart surgeons, five heart specialists, all the anaesthetists, cardiologists and cardio-radiologist, imploring the regional health authority to provide three extra intensive care units to avoid tragedies; and notes especially that amongst those signing was Duncan Walker, Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon, who recently criticised shroud-waving over the repeated cancellations of children's heart operations in Birmingham and now states that 'people are now dying on our waiting list' (Independent 18th January), which is further evidence of the profound and pervasive crisis in National Health Service operating theatres, a crisis obvious to all reasonable persons and denied now almost alone by the Prime Minister.]

Mr. Wakeham: The Yorkshire regional health authority is currently considering increasing the number of staffed intensive care beds in the next financial year. The number of heart operations in Yorkshire has increased in each of the past two years and is planned to continue to do so.

Inner London Education Authority

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the organisation of education in inner London.
The Government have consistently maintained that a single education authority for inner London could be justified only if that authority gave the children and students of inner London a good education service at an acceptable cost. ILEA has patently not done that. Its spending is profligate; its service is poor. Between 1981 and 1988, its spending increased from about £700 million to more than £1 billion—while over the same period, its pupil numbers have fallen by 15 per cent. It now spends 52 per cent. more than the outer London boroughs, 45 per cent. more than Manchester, and 83 per cent. more than Birmingham—cities with problems comparable to those of London. That increase in expenditure has in no way been reflected in improved pupil performance, which remains disappointingly low. There is now an urgent need for change.
ILEA's failure is partly a failure of political will, but it is also a product of its unmanageable size. Its administration is cumbersome, excessively costly and too distant from its clients. The Government want to improve standards of education in London and to bring costs under control. We decided that the way to do this was to enable each inner-London council to become the local education authority for its area.
Our proposals are incorporated in part III of the Education Reform Bill. Three boroughs have already stated their intention to apply for LEA status. Other boroughs are known to be considering similar action, but as this positive response to our proposals has emerged, there has been a growing view that our objectives would be better achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions in inner London.
The Government have reviewed these developments and have concluded that the time is now right to carry through the logic of their proposals in the interests of better standards and of orderly progress. We therefore propose to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill, while it is before the Standing Committee, to wind up ILEA and to secure the transfer of education responsibilities to local councils from 1 April 1990.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Educational vandalism!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Baker: We propose that the arrangements for transferring functions should follow closely those established at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
First, a staff commission will be established to facilitate the process of staff transfer. All ILEA teaching and non-teaching staff working at individual schools and colleges will transfer by order to the employment of the council concerned. Where appropriate, detriment or redundancy compensation will be available on the terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
Secondly, the arrangements for property transfer will be broadly those set out in the Education Reform Bill. It


is likely that the London residuary body will be employed to deal with assets which cannot be allocated between boroughs.
Thirdly, the Education Reform Bill already contains certain counter-obstruction safeguards to protect the interests of the local councils which will be assuming education functions. We shall strengthen those safeguards, introducing the same sanctions as were included in the legislation abolishing the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils.
The Government propose that each local council should be required to publish in 1989, as a basis for local consultation, a development plan, setting out the way in which it proposes to organise the transfer of responsibilities and the service that it would propose to run. The Government will issue statutory guidance on the subjects to be covered by such development plans, which will provide the basis for property and staff transfer orders.
I recognise that some co-operation will be needed between inner London councils for the maintenance of certain aspects of education provision. I hope that in most cases such co-operation will he secured through voluntary arrangements, which might, in certain circumstances, need to take the form of joint education committees, requiring my approval under existing powers. Were it to become necessary, there are also powers under the Education Act 1944 to enable me to require groups of boroughs to establish joint education committees in respect of particular functions.
The Government propose to maintain rigorous pressure to control ILEA's expenditure over the next two years. We attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children. They and their parents have a right to something better. The Government's proposals set out the basis for a more cost-effective and responsive education service for inner London.

Mr. Jack Straw: On his way to the Tory leadership, the Secretary of State for Education and Science has just been mugged by two political hooligans, the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Is the Secretary of State aware that this humiliating reversal of the position which he was taking just eight weeks ago has nothing whatever to do with concern for or commitment to the needs of London's children and everything to do with squalid manoeuvring for position inside the Tory party, with London's children—my children—being used as pawns?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Cabinet of which he was a member concluded just three years ago, in the words of the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Sir Keith Joseph, that a unitary education service offered the best prospect of meeting the educational needs of inner London, not for the reasons given by the present Secretary of State, but
because there is so much movement across borough boundaries by London children and students"?—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 127.]
Has this movement across borough boundaries suddenly stopped in the last eight weeks?
What exactly has changed since the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill on 1 December, when the Secretary of State described his then proposal to retain ILEA as offering
London's children a better deal"?
The Minister described ILEA as a

model authority". — [Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 780–858.]
Is there no limit to the Secretary of State's ability to twist and turn?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government have no mandate for this wilful and spiteful act, which will bring anxiety, uncertainty and instability to London's education service at a time when what it most needs is stability? Why was this new proposal for breaking up ILEA not included in the Conservative manifesto just eight months ago, if it now has so much to commend it? Was it excluded eight months ago because it was considered and rejected, or because it was seen as so ludicrous and vindictive as not to be worth considering at all? As the Government have no mandate and as none of this was even included in the Queen's Speech, does the Secretary of State accept that it would be constitutionally outrageous and an abuse of the procedure of the House for this to be introduced other than through a new primary Bill?
As the Secretary of State preaches so much about parental choice, will he say where in all this London parents are to have a say? Is the truth that, as Wandsworth Conservative borough council discovered from its own opinion poll of ILEA parents, 84 per cent. were satisfied with the academic achievement of their children's ILEA secondary schools, he has decided to ignore the clearly expressed wishes of London parents to keep ILEA intact?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, overwhelmingly, all the responses which he has received to his proposals from parents, teachers and others in London say, "Keep ILEA and do not break it up"? Why does the Secretary of State continually abuse ILEA for its examination achievements when analysis, accepted as accurate by his Department, shows ILEA in the middle of all LEAs, like Oxfordshire, represented by the right hon. Member for Henley, and well above Waltham Forest, when it was Conservative-controlled, represented by the right hon. Member for Chingford?
How does the Secretary of State dare to criticise ILEA's spending per pupil of about £2,000 per head in secondary schools when, under the assisted places scheme, he has decided that expenditure not at £2,000 but at £4,335 per head is an acceptable charge on the public purse for pupils at Westminster school?
Is the Secretary of State aware that it is the view of all London head teachers that, to go down the road which he is suggesting, involves
dismantling a system that provides the stability and hope that is lacking in so many other aspects of the life of young people in inner London."?
Is he aware that they have warned that breaking up ILEA will
spell chaos for the capital's schools."?
Is the Secretary of State aware that this disreputable announcement today will be treated with anger and contempt by parents, teachers, governors and all who put the needs of London's children above the sordid internal politics of the Conservative party?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman talked about the constitutional position of making changes in a Bill that is before the House. He will have heard the exchanges that occurred earlier this afternoon between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the


House, and the exchanges on Monday. Clearly, more time will have to be found to debate these proposals. The Government accept that.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised first the question of the manifesto. The principle on which we went to the country in June, and which underlies my education reforms, is the dispersal of responsibility. So it was with ILEA. We wanted to pass responsibility to the inner London boroughs, and we made that absolutely clear during the election campaign. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman quoted my predecessor. The manifesto clearly signalled the end of a unitary education authority in central London. The positive response of borough councils has led us to quicken the pace of devolution. Indeed, the positive response of so many inner-London boroughs means that the debate that we are having today and in the next few weeks would have taken place in about a year's time.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the review of ILEA. I advise him that many reviews of ILEA have taken place in recent years, but they have not led to an improvement in that authority's performance. ILEA has been on notice since 1981, when my predecessor but one, Lord Carlisle, put it on notice. That was seven years ago to this very day, but little has been done in those seven years.
In 1987 the new leader of ILEA, Neil Fletcher, said:
We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year".
The hon. Member for Blackburn then asked me about parental involvement. However, he knows perfectly well that, when it comes to the transfer of local government powers, it has always been this House which has had to make the decision. Parliament cannot delegate its authority.
If the hon. Gentleman is interested in polls, he will no doubt have seen the recent Harris poll, which showed that nearly one third of parents in inner London would like to send their children to another school. That proportion was higher than the corresponding figures for neighbouring boroughs.
The hon. Gentleman chided me for listening to various voices. I advise him that we have listened to many voices beyond the Conservative party. He will know that the leader in last week's Times Educational Supplement stated that the best way forward would be now to accept the amendment.
I have also read a speech by the noble Lady, Lady Blackstone, who takes the Labour Whip in the other place and who is an expert on education in London. She stated:
the Government should have had the courage of its convictions and abolished the Authority instead of this slow attrition".
I advise the hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues in the other place, that the Government now have the courage of their convictions and will move to abolition.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in eight years of arguing as a Minister inside Government I failed to secure the abolition of ILEA, but that in eight months of arguing outside it seems that I have done so? Will he be kind enough not to draw any conclusions from that? Will he further ignore all the blatherings from the Opposition, which are only an echo

of the foolish blatherings and threats that were made when we abolished the Greater London council, which is now dead, gone and forgotten?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for his wholehearted support for my proposals. I have long known his views on ILEA. They have been expressed to me on several occasions in terms that were rather more blunt than appeared on the Order Paper. However, I am glad that I have his support and look forward to that support being continued in the weeks and months to come when we move ahead with this important measure.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: If ILEA is so bad, in isolated cases, why then has the Secretary of State not used his powers to intervene to put matters right? How can he justify that, except on the basis of a squalid attempt to provide a political excuse for this hasty and brutal dismemberment? If the Secretary of State is worried about Left-wing inefficiency and influence, how can he hand over the schoolchildren lock, stock and barrel to the tender mercies of councils such as Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark?

Mr. Baker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is concern about many aspects of the education provided. I read most of the reports that are published about inner London by HMI — the hon. Gentleman may read some of them — and all express real concern, especially about secondary education. At one secondary school, for example, the inspectors found that, in the fifth year as a whole, attendance was only 55 per cent., and in one class it was only 46 per cent. When making a survey of science in secondary schools, Her Majesty's inspectors stated:
the quality of teaching and learning experience … in over one-tenth of classes visited was unrelievedly bad".

Mr. Straw: What reports are these?

Mr. Baker: These are very recent reports. I shall make them available.
I advise the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that a great part of the problem is that ILEA is too large and remote. We feel that education will be improved and become more responsive to parents' wishes when it is closer to the local community. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that that is the principle behind the Education Reform Bill.
I find the hon. Gentleman's attitude strangely illogical, because it is the Liberals in Tower Hamlets who want to run their education service, and presumably the hon. Gentleman does not object to that. Are those Liberals in Tower Hamlets less competent than their fellow Liberals in Richmond?

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heseltine.

Mr. Heseltine: May I strongly support today's announcement by my right hon. Friend which will give London schoolchildren a more stable, effective and accountable background for their educational arrangements? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the excess in ILEA's overspending will not be passed to the boroughs under the arrangements that he has in mind?
Will my right hon. Friend accept how deeply I resent the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and I are political hooligans? I believe that my right hon. Friend is renowned the length and breadth of the land for his charm and courtesy. However, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State happens to be looking for a couple of likely lads to help him with the administrative arrangements for bringing about these transfers, subject to consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, we might be able to suggest a couple of names.

Mr. Baker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for my proposals. I have known his views on ILEA for a long time, and he has known my views on ILEA. Nobody should underestimate my right hon. Friend's ability to hurl himself through a half-open door.
I shall be setting up a unit in my Department which will negotiate with ILEA and with the London Labour boroughs in the coming weeks and months to ensure an orderly transfer. That is an important function and responsibility for my Department.
On the financial matters about which my right hon. Friend specifically asked, we shall consider carefully what the most appropriate transitional arrangements might be, given that the inner-London boroughs are likely to inherit overspending from ILEA.

Mr. Peter Shore: If the Government do not think that the inner-London boroughs are capable of running their own housing services—the Government clearly do not think that they are capable of running a lot of other services as well, hence the necessity to hive them off—and since the Government have either rate-capped or fined most of the London boroughs for overspending, why do they think that education services will be better administered by those so-called inefficient, incompetent and worst boroughs than under the present ILEA?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House, and especially me, since I represent one of the poorest boroughs in London, Tower Hamlets, what arrangements he will make to ensure that ultimately there will be no fewer financial resources available to the poor boroughs of inner London than are available today under the cross-subsidisation of ILEA?

Mr. Baker: On the last point, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look in Hansard tomorrow at the responses I have given my right hon. Friend on the financing of London boroughs after the 1990s. Irrespective of the policy change, the present system of local government finance, under which the wealthy boroughs subsidise the poorer boroughs—London equalisation—will cease in 1990, when the community charge and unified business rate come into operation. Instead, a system of Exchequer grants to local authorities will equalise the differences in the need to spend. The new system will provide a means of ensuring the equitable distribution of resources of local authorities to take account of local and social needs. Clearly, in the determination of those separate needs grants for individual London boroughs, taking into account the educational responsibilities, is very important.
On the general point raised by the right hon. Member, I am a little surprised that Labour Members seem so angry

and alarmed at the prospect of Labour-controlled inner-London boroughs running their education. Does not the right hon. Gentleman have more confidence in his party colleagues?

Mr. James Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the central thrust of the Education Reform Bill is to devolve power and responsibility to parents? Does he agree that the abolition of ILEA is well in accordance with that central aim and that ILEA will be forgotten just as quickly as the Greater London Council?

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because when I was dealing with the abolition of the GLC I was constantly told that London boroughs could not do it, and that civilised life as we knew it in the capital city would end.

Mr. Tony Banks: It has.

Mr. Baker: As for the former chairman of the GLC, I say to him that few people now remember what the GLC actually did. It has left virtually no memorial.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government have changed their mind three times in the past four years on the best way to organise London education? What evidence is there that giving education to the boroughs will ensure better education for London children?

Mr. Baker: I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has followed these matters closely, that when my predecessor, Lord Carlisle, made a statement seven years ago to this very day, he said:
The long-term retention of the single education authority for inner London is justified only if the authority shows that it can give the children and students of inner London a good service in all phases of education at an acceptable cost. It is up to ILEA to put its house in order."—[Official Report, 4 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 296–7.]
ILEA has had seven years, and the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been concerned with this for some time, that it has shown precious little effort to put its house in order. It has said repeatedly that it will be better next year. We believe that the education of the children of London would be improved if it were done at a more local level.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last time education was looked at independently was by a royal commission in October 1960? It came down very firmly against a unitary authority, but certain of the educational intelligentsia were able to bring sufficient pressure on the then Government so that they backtracked. As one who opposed the formation of ILEA from the very beginning, when I was in local government, I welcome the support of my right hon. Friends and their conversion to the cause.

Mr. Baker: I well recall my hon. Friend, who was the Back-Bench spokesman for London matters in the 1960s, advocating this throughout that period. As he will know, I have been a long-term supporter of that. In fact, my pamphlet in 1980 advocated the dispersal of responsibility for education, and our manifesto in June of last year signalled the end of the unitary authority. We are now putting that in hand.

Mr. Spearing: What will the Secretary of State say to those 500,000 people who attend day continuation classes


and evening classes in the ILEA area, including those from outside Greater London? Is he aware that 60 per cent. of the pupils of primary schools in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea go outside the borough to secondary schools, based on parental choice? Is he aware that on Tuesday, when in a written question I asked him to set out the numbers of pupils and attendances at colleges in each London borough, his hon. Friend said that the information was not collected centrally? Did the Cabinet take the decision today or previously on information which they did not have, or was that answer incorrect?

Mr. Baker: Since 1980, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when children move from an education authority in one borough to another, the money has followed the child. That has been the position, and it has been done on separate terms for children with special educational needs and other needs.

Mr. Banks: Not within ILEA.

Mr. Baker: No, but from ILEA to outside. It is possible to have exactly the same arrangements. Dealing with the first point the hon. Gentleman raised, on the services of further education and adult education in London, which is very important, I entirely accept that many people outside the inner London area use those services. Many of them are organised on a cross-borough basis, which is one of the reasons why I have set up a unit in my Department to examine with the boroughs and ILEA whether there is a need for any joint education committees.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: If one is to split up ILEA, it would seem better to split it cleanly at the beginning than to have one, two or three boroughs dropping out one by one, with the authority not knowing what will happen in the next year. It seems to me to be sensible to look at co-operation where the parents want co-operation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that the Inner London education authority has never attained the same reputation as the former London county council, which was renowned throughout the world. An authority that spends 40 per cent. more in real terms than the average in the rest of the country, with children having 40 per cent. less likelihood of getting five O-levels or CSEs, seems to have a death wish.

Mr. Baker: Certainly ILEA, by any standards, is an extravagant authority. As for the list of exam results quoted by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), even if one accepts the basis for those adjustments, there are considerable reservations on the methodology. The authors of the report said:
Limitations on the data used mean that the method should be taken as illustrative of the method of analysis rather than a final judgment on the LEAs concerned.
Even if I were to accept the judgment of the LEA concerned, ILEA comes 56th out of 96, but it is No. 1 on expenditure. It has become clear that there is considerable support in many parts of London for an orderly transfer. That has been expressed by people in ILEA, people who are not Conservatives, people who are concerned, and by certain churchmen. I am sure that we are right to take the action.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I tell the Secretary of State that for me he personifies the smile on the face of Fascism in the latter-day Tory party? Will he tell the House, first, how much Government money goes to the Inner London education authority at the moment? Which London boroughs, other than the three Tory boroughs, have signified any interest in opting out of the Inner London education authority? How has he managed to change his mind so remarkably yet again, first on the GLC and now on the Inner London education authority?

Mr. Baker: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has never got over being the last chairman of the GLC. I recognise that the hon. Member believes that he is the king over the water for the GLC, the last of the Jacobites waiting for the restoration. I believe he has the regalia still in store. He knows better than anyone else that the GLC's performance over the years badly let down the people of London, and ILEA is even worse. It has badly let down far too many London children. I find it extraordinary that a Labour Member representing an outer-London borough which has full education responsibilities should wish to deny the same responsibilities to Labour inner-London boroughs.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today's ILEA is unrecognisable from the LCC education authority, to which I was appointed as a young teacher 31 years ago? The deterioration in behaviour, work and the attendance of children over those years, and the authority's inability to recruit, as it could 31 years ago, the best teachers in the country—it has difficulty today in recruiting teachers in many schools because of its policies — means that the children of London are getting a very raw deal.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Peter McIntosh, who was a distinguished ILEA chief inspector of physical education for many years, and who chaired the recent committee that looked into sport in London schools following the collapse of sport in London schools —which formerly was very good—wrote to me this week to say, "Harry, will you support the immediate disbandment of ILEA? It is quite the best solution and much better than many others on offer"?

Mr. Baker: The political leaders of ILEA—not its administrative staff—over the years have done a great disservice to education in London by following a series of fads, of which one was to condemn competitive sport. Late in the day, as a result of that committee's report, it changed its policy. That is one reason among many why so many children get a poor deal out of ILEA.

Ms. Diane Abbott: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order at the end.

Ms. Abbott: The Secretary of State has accused ILEA of letting down the children of inner London. He referred earlier to his plans for equalisation. Is he willing, here and now, to give a commitment that the resources available to


individual boroughs under his arrangements will not he less, in real terms or relatively, than the resources available now? Otherwise, although his arrangements may result in an improvement in the quality of education of children in Mayfair, overall his arrangements will result in a decrease in the quality of education for poor children in London, such as those in Hackney, whom I represent; he will be letting down the children of the poor in London.

Mr. Baker: The points that I have already made on the financial arrangements after 1990 are very important. We have made it clear that ILEA is an extravagant authority. We believe that much can be saved in its administrative costs. It has two and half times more administrators than the average LEA. We should like to see —

Mr. Dobson: What about Stubbs?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position makes a comment about Mr. Stubbs. Various remarks that I completely deplore were made about Mr. Stubbs in the debate on Monday. He has been an outstanding servant of inner London. The trouble is that he has had very poor political direction.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I recognise that my right hon. Friend's proposal will bring great benefit to many children in London. Will he in turn recognise that there is grave disquiet in boroughs such Southwark, where people think that it does not have the ability to run an effective education service? Will he assure the House that there will be special assistance and advice to boroughs such as Southwark? Will he also recognise the important work that is being done Londonwide by the adult education institutes, particularly the excellent work of the Mary Ward centre, the City Literary Institute and Morley college?

Mr. Baker: I completely agree with the latter points made by my hon. Friend. These are the very matters that the unit in my Department will be discussing with inner-London authorities and ILEA.
As to the ability of authorities to run education services, many more powers will be in place as a result of the Education Reform Bill, and many more opportunities will be available. First, there will be the national curriculum, which will provide a bulwark of protection against distortion of the curriculum in schools. There will be open enrolment, whereby parents will have a greater chance to choose the school they want their children to attend. There will be financial delegation, whereby headmasters and senior teachers will have more power over their schools. Last, and very important, there will be the opportunity for schools to opt out. All these will be safeguards for the position that my hon. Friend envisages.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The Secretary of State may know that I have been critical of ILEA's performance over recent years, particularly of its levels of bureucracy and its performance at secondary level. But what evidence is there that transferring the education of children such as mine from ILEA to London boroughs will result in an improvement in the quality of education for them? Will the unit consider the needs of children with special needs? They have been extremely well provided for by ILEA, and they may suffer if the centralised provision, which is available only on the larger scale, is withdrawn.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The great bulk of special education provision in

inner London is good—some of it is very good. There have been one or two disappointing reports, but I am glad to say they are the exception. These are the sorts of service for which it is possible that there will be a joint education committee. The transfer of children with special needs from one borough to another is rather more easy because the full cost of education transfers with the child. I assure the hon. Lady that I do not want any diminution in the good provision for special education in London.

Mr. William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, ever since I was a chief whip on ILEA 20 years ago, I have supported its abolition? However, my conviction was tempered by the fear of what might happen to children in my constituency if education were to be run by Lambeth council. I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said, and by the safeguards in the Education Reform Bill.
Will my right hon. Friend keep very much in mind the concern that many of us will have about adult education, the youth service and special needs? Will he consider, for adult education and the new service, transferring the full cost, rather than the national average cost, to the borough accepting people from the other borough? Will he also consider implementing the Thompson report and making the youth service statutory? It would be a good time to do so.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend's last point goes rather wider than the measures that we have in hand. I am glad of his support for these measures. He brings a great deal of experience to ILEA matters, having been its chief whip, and I know that over the years he has been particularly concerned about the provision of education in his constituency. I can assure him that the matters that he has raised — adult education, further education and the youth service — will be taken carefully into account during the transfer of education responsibilities.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State accept that many people outside the House will recognise today as a terrible day for education in inner London? He has committed an act of political vandalism against a Labour-controlled authority. He has deliberately starved it of funds ever since he has had the power to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I have been in touch with our borough council. We found that the net deficit in spending by ILEA, compared with what Islington ratepayers pay, is about £30 million. As the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to answer any specific questions from other hon. Members about how much money will be available for education in the boroughs, will he assure me that there will not be school closures, loss of teachers' jobs, loss of ancillary workers' jobs and sale of school premises when he has committed this act of vandalism?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be enormous opposition to this act? Parents, children and employees of the authority realise that they are about to experience the swift destruction of a very good education service.

Mr. Baker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the various inspectors' reports, including Her Majesty's inspectors' reports and ILEA inspectors' reports, about the standard of education in inner London. He simply cannot have read them. I am surprised at his lack of


confidence in the ability of his borough to cope with education. According to the ILEA chief inspector's report about Islington:
As the smallest division, DO3 (Islington) enjoys certain advantages: communication is relatively easy and the scale of the division helps to engender a sense of identity. Inspectors and officers work as a close team, and there exists a tradition of innovation and independence.
The new responsibilities will be built on that.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend most sincerely on his decision, which will be very well received in Kensington and which is obviously essential as part of his campaign to improve education standards in London? May I express the hope that politically motivated opposition to his decision will very quickly die down, so that the teachers, the parents and the local authorities concerned can work together in peace to make this reform a success?

Mr. Baker: I very much hope that that will be the spirit over the coming weeks and months. There will clearly be a much more orderly transfer of responsibilities if there is co-operation from the different boroughs — Labour as well as Conservative. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will give a lead by encouraging Labour boroughs and ILEA to co-operate, so that there may be an orderly transfer. I am sure that there will be a relatively short-lived political campaign to preserve ILEA, but I hope that everyone concerned in London politics will appreciate that the measure will go through and that it is important from the point of view of the children that the responsibilities are transferred in a proper and orderly fashion.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Before the Secretary of State introduces the proposals which are politically and constitutionally arbitrary and irresponsible, will he arrange for a poll of all electors in ILEA to determine whether he has a mandate? Contrariwise, can it really be right that the future of the education of 270,000 children in ILEA should be determined by the scratching paw of a tabby cat from Henley? Who is in charge of education, her or him?

Mr. Baker: In the general election, the Conservatives did very well by winning two seats in inner London. I have already said that we clearly flagged the end of a unitary education authority for London in our manifesto. We are now implementing that.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the underwhelming welcome from Opposition Members for this proposal may have something to do with the fact that they are members of the party that is responsible for the mess in which ILEA finds itself? Does he agree that there will be a widespread welcome for his statement from everyone concerned about the under-achievements of ILEA? Does he agree that an education authority that produces results whereby under 10 per cent. of children leave school with five or more O-levels and nearly a quarter with no results or achievements on paper has failed the children of inner London?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend speaks from direct experience as one of the victors in inner London at the last general election, when he was successful in Wandsworth. The popularity of our proposal to transfer educational

responsibilities to Wandsworth was triumphantly vin-dicated in the Wandsworth council by-election when it was made the issue by the Labour party. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the level of educational performance because, at the end of the day, that is what it comes down to. The children in inner-London schools deserve better.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the Secretary of State withdraw the deceptive and wrong implication that Lady Blackstone is in favour of the break-up of ILEA?
The Secretary of State talks about parent power. Why has he not listened to parents in Southwark? The three hon. Members representing constituencies in Southwark are aware that parents in Southwark who know more and care more about their children than the Secretary of State ever will believe that the best chance to improve their children's education lies with the Inner London education authority. This is not politically motivated opposition to the break-up of ILEA: it is parentally motivated opposition to the break-up of ILEA.

Mr. Baker: I quoted from the words of Lady Blackstone as I read them in The Times Educational Supplement. If she feels that the quotation does not represent her views, no doubt she will make that known. She is quite capable of doing so. I repeat what I said in reply to an earlier question: the transfer of responsibilities between an upper and lower-tier authority has always been the duty and responsibility of this House.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware how welcome the lifting of ILEA's bureaucracy from the backs of parents and teachers in inner London will be to so many people who have struggled in schools—some of which are excellent—to provide a decent education under ILEA? Is he aware that the lifting of ILEA from their backs will enable those schools to provide not only a good education, but a much better education than they provided previously? I was also glad to hear my right hon. Friend's statements about the transition and the arrangements that have been made to cover special schools, adult education and in particular nursery schools, all of which are tributes to London and must continue after abolition.

Mr. Baker: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's warm support and endorsement. I remind the House that he was another winner in inner London in the general election. I am glad to hear his support for the way in which we intend to handle this matter. We want to do this responsibly and orderly, so that the education services in London are preserved and improved. We believe that they will be improved when responsibility is transferred closer to the parent and the local community.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that I, as a representative of the borough of Lewisham, have received not a single letter from a parent, teacher, parent-teacher organisation or governing body seeking to have the education of children of the borough removed from ILEA and transferred to the borough of Lewisham? I note that hon. Members representing other constituencies in Lewisham are not present in the Chamber—[Interruption.] They are on the Tory side. I urge the Secretary of State to give me his evidence from my constituency to support his proposals.


Furthermore, will he answer an earlier question and tell us which local authorities, apart from Tory-controlled authorities, are seeking to have the change brought about?

Mr. Baker: What passes through the hon. Lady's postbag is not a matter for me. In response to the interest about boroughs that wish to take responsibility for education, I can state that three authorities have already decided to do that — Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. The City of London has also said that it wants to do that.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is not an inner-London authority.

Mr. Baker: It counts, none the less. Those who follow London politics — the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows about local government —know perfectly well that the City of London is a local authority for those purposes.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: It has no children.

Mr. Baker: It does have some children.
Tower Hamlets has also clearly expressed a view. Earlier—I would not say that this is the view expressed now—there was considerable interest in some Labour-controlled authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which are they?"] Hon. Members opposite represent those authorities and they must find out which have expressed interest. I predict that, after my statement today, many of those authorities will now become infinitely more interested.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend has noted that a list of people apart from the Baroness Blackstone, including Mr. William Stubbs and various officers and ex-officers of ILEA, believe that a one-step devolution is preferable to opting out. The paramount importance now is urgency. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will carefully monitor the fact that London boroughs are making full preparations for a changeover in April 1990?

Mr. Baker: Yes, that is the target date. It is an important date, because it means that the provision of educational responsibility in London will feature prominently in the local government elections of that year, as it ought to.
As regards the time available, we are working on very much the same timetable as was used in 1963 for the establishment from scratch of the outer London boroughs as local education authorities. The dispersal of responsibilities for the GLC was undertaken in a much shorter period of eight months. I am satisfied that there will be enough time for a satisfactory transfer.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Secretary of State will be aware of the findings and recommendations of the Swann committee of inquiry into underachievement among Afro-Caribbean and Asian children. He will also be aware in that regard that the Inner London education authority's centre for urban educational studies, the centre for learning resources, and such ILEA-funded organisations as the Afro-Caribbean educational resource project, have done work that has been praised by his own inspectors, and has been emulated by education authorities, Conservative and Labour alike, and indeed studied throughout the world as examples of best practice in this area. Apart from vague generalisations about joint committees, how is this valuable work to be preserved?

Mr. Baker: If there is valuable work carried on by those bodies—and I do not question it for a moment—those are the sorts of things that will be examined by the unit in my Department in its discussions with ILEA and the London Labour boroughs. Could I say to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he follows these matters very closely, that some interesting educational research has been done in ILEA on the achievement of black Afro-Caribbean children compared with white children. What they discovered—this is of no surprise at all—was that many of the black Afro-Caribbean children were infinitely more motivated to achieve and do better than many of the white children. But what the research also discovered was that their failure to do as well was due to the absence of basic skills. That is ILEA research. It is very important to embed in children, from whatever background they come, the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, at an early age.

Mr. Toby Jessel: My right hon. Friend has just mentioned 1963. Does he remember that, back in 1963, he was prospective Conservative candidate for Poplar and I was the candidate for Peckham, both of which are in inner London.

Mr. Martin Flannery: You did not win.

Mr. Jessel: The then Conservative Government, in abolishing the London county council, had intended to set up the inner-London boroughs as education authorities, but there was a strident campaign by teachers—

Mr. Spearing: And parents.

Mr. Jessel: —the Government wavered, and the Inner London education authority was set up, which was disastrous. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that this time, in the event of a strident campaign by teachers, this Conservative Government will not waver?

Mr. Baker: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I remember very well fighting alongside him in politics in the 1960s. I remember fighting Poplar in 1964—and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, it is fair to say that Poplar fought back. I was not elected. But what my hon. Friend says is true and I can assure him that we will resolutely carry through the proposals that I have put to the House today.

Mr. John Fraser: Since ILEA does not receive any Government money at the moment, how much Government subsidy is planned to be given to boroughs such as Lambeth after 1 April 1990? Could the Secretary of State tell us how many Conservative Members of Parliament from Lambeth, Southwark, Greenwich and Lewisham have made representations in favour of the announcement today?

Mr. Baker: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to the representations that have been made during these questions. The funding of all local services in central London will change after 1990, because all boroughs will receive a grant that will be based in large part upon the needs assessment of that particular borough, which 'will include education. The assessment of that is a very important factor in this, and, as I have said, it is the sort of thing that the unit in my Department will be looking into.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As one who was educated at an LCC comprehensive school and who was


a teacher in one, and who has latterly been an opposition Member of ILEA, may I assure my right hon. Friend that many of us are delighted that he has at last grasped the nettle of overspending in ILEA and its poor examination results?
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a parliamentary answer by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, which showed that ILEA was 84th in the exam league, yet Wigan, which has the same socio-economic problems, came ninth and spent less? Does that not show that it is not merely a question of what an education authority provides, but how it supports teachers in their schools?

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the exam results would be better in the school where he taught if he was still teaching there, but that does not mean to say that we want him to give up being the hon. Member for Pembroke. He brings a great deal of experience to the question, and I confirm what he says.
The analysis of exam results, as those who have looked into the matter will know, needs very careful interpretation. The recommendations of the report of the task group on assessment and testing are that exam results for schools should be reported exactly as they are, as it were — undoctored or unadjusted—because of the methodology in the adjustment. The report also says that, when exam results are published, there should be a report about the socio-economic background of the school. That seems to be reasonable, but the adjustment of examination results and the various methods that have been tried have not won much credit statistically.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Secretary of State accept it from me, coming from a city in the north, that the excellent work of ILEA is deeply admired by local education authorities all over Britain, and especially by my own authority? Will he also accept it from me that that fact is not unlinked to the attack by the Government in the Education Reform Bill on all local education authorities?
I have in my hand the list of assisted places that was given in the written answer on 1 February. For instance, 459 pupils out of 1,200 at public schools in Newcastle-under-Lyme have assisted places at £2,000 each, which is £900,000 of public money. If that figure is multiplied by all the other schools, it means that more than £50 million of public money will go to private education. The figure will go higher and higher with another 126 schools having assisted places. Can we have an answer about that, when the Secretary of State talks about the money that ILEA is properly using for the education of the children of London?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is a leading member of the National Union of Teachers. I do not believe that anyone who recalls the disruption of schooling that was caused by the teachers' walk-outs of recent memory will take lectures from the NUT or from him about inflicting damage on children.

Mr. Flannery: Answer the question.

Mr. Baker: I certainly will not take lectures about causing havoc to schoolchildren from a representative of a union that next week will disrupt schools in London yet again.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call Conservative Members who have been rising because they have a specialised interest in the matter, although they are not London Members.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: May I say to my right hon. Friend how much I welcome his decision? However, a shadow that hangs over it, to my mind. I share some of the anxieties of Opposition Members who represent some of the inner-London boroughs at their competence to run primary education. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he will look very carefully at the situation of those primary schools which will not be able to opt out and which might have difficulty in obtaining all the resources they need in the very early years of the national curriculum to meet its demands? Will he ensure that some of these Labour boroughs do not destroy their opportunities?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right to express his concern. We envisage that each London borough will be asked to present a development plan early next year, and that will form the framework and structure. We will examine it together with them. That will be the basis for the transfer of responsibilities. Clearly, we want to be satisfied that a proper structure will be provided. I am optimistic enough to believe that that is what most, indeed all, of the London boroughs will want to do as well.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has beome increasingly the view of head teachers in London that ILEA has become more cumbersome and distant and too bureaucratic and that his proposals present tremendous opportunities and responsibilities to all those in local communities, including Labour borough councillors? I should have thought they would welcome and seize such opportunities and responsibilities.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the unit that will oversee the ease of transition and the necessary collaborative arrangements has seconded to it as advisers some representatives from, say, head teachers or the local authority administrations, so that wider general public support can be given to what he is doing.

Mr. Baker: On my hon. Friend's last point, I will consider what he has said. I do not know whether they will be members of the union. That may not be appropriate. Certainly we want to call upon collective advice and individual experience. My hon. Friend used a word which I was glad to hear — "opportunities". There will be better and growing opportunities as a result of what we have announced today. That is one of the exciting aspects of our proposals.

Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend's decision is very good news for children. It brings to an end a great deal of uncertainty, but inevitably it will give rise to more uncertainty in the minds of many teachers. Will he do all he can to ensure that not only our teachers' unions and organisations are well informed about the proposals but that individual teachers are approached directly by letter or in some other way so that the campaign of disinformation which is bound to flow from the vested interests can be circumvented?

Mr. Baker: I very much hope that ILEA will not engage in a campaign of disinformation, particularly on staffing. I set out clearly in my statement the provisions on transfer


of staff. I hope that the various unions and the staff of ILEA will study them carefully. In shorthand, we are keeping to the same proposals as applied to the dissolution of the GLC. I think that will give considerable reassurance to many teachers in schools and colleges.

Mr. Tony Baldry: May I say, as a parent whose children are about to start their state education at an inner London school in Lambeth, how warmly I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? The abolition of ILEA will inevitably mean that schooling will be more cost-effective and more responsive. Many parents will take the opportunity given to them by the Education Reform Bill to ensure that their children who are at state schools in inner London have a decent education, as have children elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Baker: I warmly thank my hon. Friend for saying that. That is the whole purpose of what we are trying to do. We are trying to improve the basic education of children. In the past, far too many have not had a good deal, particularly at secondary level. —[Interruption.] I hear the Minister of State, who is in charge of our campaign on parent governors, expressing the hope that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) will become a parent governor.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Is it not clear that, despite the vacuous style of the Secretary State, his statement represents a personal climbdown? I agree with one statement made by the Secretary of State. He was accurate when he said that the statement represented a dispersal of responsibility. That it does—a dispersal of responsibility away from the Secretary of State to his right hon. Friends who made the decision.
Several of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends have welcomed his conversion to the abolition of ILEA. At no stage have the Government or the Secretary of State had a mandate for the proposal. Despite the words of the Secretary of State, there was no reference to the abolition of ILEA in the Conservative party manifesto. There was no proposal for its abolition in the Government's consultative document which was published in the autumn. Certainly there was no proposal for the abolition of ILEA in the Bill published in November and debated in the House on 1 December. If there had been such a proposal, why would there have been a need for the campaign by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and 100 other Conservative Back Benchers?
The Secretary of State has to answer the question of where the mandate has come from. He also has to answer the question, what has happened since the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, when he pronounced that the proposals in the Bill were good for the education of the children of London? The proposals announced today are totally contrary to those in the Bill. Has the Secretary of State had a conversion or is his previous tenuous hold on political principle now severed?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps read the pamphlet that I produced in 1980. I have consistently believed that education in inner London would be better if it was returned to the boroughs. What we signalled in the manifesto was the end of a unitary education authority for central London because that has become so popular, with a number of boroughs indicating support for it. The voices that have grown, not just from the Conservative

party but from many other places, indicate that it will be better to have an orderly transfer of education responsibility. I very much hope that the proposal will have the support of the practical, active Labour politicians on the ground in inner London.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Government to seek to abolish the Inner London education authority.
The Secretary of State's statement of intent represents an abuse of power. There has been no consultation whatsoever on the proposal with the people of London who foot the entire bill for the Inner London education authority. It is a classic example of an elective dictatorship at work. It is constitutionally improper and represents an insult to the House of mammoth proportions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (M r. Fatchett) has said, the Government have no electoral mandate to abolish ILEA. Perhaps the Government have become so arrogant or authoritarian that they no longer have any regard for an election manifesto.
The Government considered abolition of ILEA at the same time as abolition of the Greater London council, but rejected it. They could have included abolition in the Education Reform Bill when it was presented to the House; they did not. On Monday, when we took the decision on the guillotine motion for the Education Reform Bill, an announcement could have been made; it was not. What different factors prevail now that did not exist in 1985, or eight weeks ago when the Education Reform Bill was debated, or last Monday when the guillotine motion was moved?
This is not the first attempt by the Tory party to abolish ILEA. It was considered in 1977, in 1979, in 1980 and between 1983 and 1985. All previous reviews of ILEA have come to the conclusion that it was in the interests of inner-London pupils, teachers and parents to preserve the unitary education authority. The statement by the Secretary of State has nothing to do with the educational needs and interests of Londoners.

Mr. Speaker: One minute more.

Mr. Banks: We believe that it is all part of the squalid, ideological campaign being waged by this noxious Government against Labour-controlled local authorities. For all we know, it is probably part of a leadership battle to establish the successor as leader of the Conservative party when Mama Doc finally stands down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is riot like the hon. Gentleman to use such phrases.

Mr. Banks: The circumstances are somewhat different today, Mr. Speaker.
The Secretary of State does not have one single principle that he would not willingly trade for personal political advantage. The implications for Londoners and for the boroughs of the abolition of ILEA are too profound to be dealt with other than by a separate Bill which would be discussed on the Floor of the House. Since that is not to happen, it is essential that we have a full debate in the House as soon as possible. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the application sympathetically.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Government to seek to abolish the Inner London education authority.
I listened with great concern to what the hon. Gentleman said. I listened also to what the Leader of the Opposition said to the Leader of the House, and again to what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said to the Secretary of State. I noted the responses of the Leader of the House and of the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my duty in assessing a Standing Order No. 20 application is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House today.

Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of the point of order, which does not relate to the application under Standing Order No. 20 but is concerned with whether it would be more appropriate for the change of policy announced by the Secretary of State for Education to be introduced by way of a new Bill rather than being spatchcocked into the Education Reform Bill.
I fully understand that you are not responsible for the content of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but you are responsible for the order of the House and for the orderly progress of legislation. On many occasions Ministers introduce amendments and new clauses as Bills are going through the House. However, I do not think that any hon. Member can recall an occasion involving the introduction of a major change of policy into a Bill after that Bill has been the subject of a guillotine motion, with a timetable laid down for its progress in Committee and in the House.
The simple reality is that it will not be possible properly to consider the major issues raised by this new policy within the timetable either in Committee or in the House. Moreover, there would, if this were included in the present Bill, be no chance for the House to have a debate upon the principle, as would be possible in a normal Second Reading debate.
In view of all those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to rule that it would be far more appropriate for the Government to bring this forward by way of a new Bill than to abuse the procedures of the House and truncate consideration of new clauses?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I could rule in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I fully accept that the House would expect more time.

Mr. James Wallace: On a similar point to that raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), obviously there will be a political debate because the Government are clearly putting their internal political battles ahead of the interests of 270,000 children in inner London. There is an important constitutional point here. We have a fundamental new principle being tacked on to the end of a Bill and it is quite clear from what the Secretary of State has said that this cannot be a matter of one new clause; there will have to be schedules and a considerable number of new clauses.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn and what the precedents

are for such a fundamental change of policy, and to give your considered view to the House, perhaps next week, on whether the Government have acted with propriety and whether there is a precedent for a separate Bill being brought in.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that an amendment to a Bill in Committee is not in order if it reverses the principle of the Bill as agreed on Second Reading? Is it not the case that a new clause may not in effect redraft clauses already in the Bill?
We maintain that this is a reversal of the principle of the Bill as agreed on Second Reading, in which case it is unacceptable. The Secretary of State would say that it is a redrafting of clauses already in the Bill. If it is, it appears to us that it is still out of order. But, setting aside the technicalities of "Erskine May", you, Mr. Speaker, as the person in the House principally responsible for maintaining the reputation of the House, from time to time say that certain activity in the House is likely to bring it into disrepute. As members of the Opposition, we can think of nothing more likely to bring the House into disrepute than an effort by the Government totally to reverse their election manifesto commitment on one item seven months after the general election, and as a sideshow in an existing Bill.
We believe that the only way in which the reputation of the House can be preserved and the interests of children, young people and mature students in inner London protected is by having a new Bill. Nothing less will protect the reputation of the House or satisfy the people of inner London whose interests are being denied and damaged today.

Mr. Speaker: Let me take up one point which the hon. Gentleman made. I have no idea what kind of amendments are likely to be moved, or whether amendments are likely to be moved. I can tell the hon. Member that, if amendments were proposed which went beyond the scope of the Bill, they would be out of order. That would, of course, be a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee and not for me.

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill, which has already been guillotined, so that we are not having a chance to discuss very large parts of it. To insert into the Bill a huge issue such as this, when it is already a vast Bill—indeed, one of the biggest ever, and we have already spent about 90 hours on it, with more to come—seems to many of us to be completely out of order.
We want it placed on record that this is a very major decision which has apparently been thought out as matters have been running along so as to get rid of ILEA in one fell swoop. We believe that it is sufficiently important to merit a Bill in its own right and not to be inserted in a Bill which has already been guillotined.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too speak as a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill and also, incidentally, as a parent of children at ILEA schools. I believe that abolition was fully foreseen in the Bill because it is provided in clause 1(1)(v) that ILEA would be completely abolished once eight boroughs had chosen to opt out. Furthermore, members of the Committee have put down


amendments to the effect that that trigger should operate after five boroughs have opted out. It is now clear that, on the strength of advice from many worthy figures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that it is more orderly to abolish ILEA in one step. So I see nothing irregular in the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder whether you could consider, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order for the Government to amend this Bill rather than bring forward another Bill on the basis of the composition of the Committee. The Committee of Selection, acting on behalf of the House, selects hon. Members to serve on a Committee on the basis of the Bill when it comes to Second Reading. On Second Reading, the provisions concerning ILEA were relatively small, and I think it is fair to say that the Committee of Selection took into account its impact on London.
Clearly, if these proposals were to be added at this stage it would be appropriate for the Committee of Selection to reconsider its selection and ensure that there were rather more representatives from inner London on the Standing Committee. I believe that that would produce considerable procedural difficulty, so surely it is right and proper that we should start with a new piece of legislation and not have these proposals added to the present Bill.

Mr. Speaker: We have to have regard to later business, in which a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. All these matters are for the discussions which the Leader of the House has said that he will carry on through the usual channels. I cannot answer them.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I wonder whether it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker, if I were to indicate how I see the position.
During the debate on the timetable motion on Monday, I indicated that if there were to be a major change of policy we would look again at the timetable for the rest of the Bill.
We have had an important statement today. I think that the right thing now is for us to have discussions through the usual channels to decide how best to proceed from here. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in the way that he framed his question to me, made what I thought was a constructive suggestion. I shall look at that and see if I can find a solution that is acceptable to all hon. Members of the House.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said when you gave your ruling to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that you would not be prepared to grant a Standing Order No. 20 application today, and I understand the reasons for that. The scope of the Second Reading of the Bill, whatever may have been the technical extent of the short title, included optional, not mandatory, provisions for education in London, which, I remind hon. Members, has been in being since 1870, for the bulk of the children in the area, organised by virtually a single continuing authority.
The Bill in Committee will clearly be changed by the amendments that are to come. The Leader of the House has referred to a certain possibility, but, whatever the technical scope of the Bill—to which you have already referred, Mr. Speaker—a debate on the order which will

be before us next week and which is a narrow statutory instrument will not properly deal with the point that has been raised unless the Government make a statement very soon that there will be a separate Bill. If they do not do that, Mr. Speaker, may I revert to the point with which I started concerning a future Standing Order No. 20 application on another day?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will recognise and agree that the statement made by the Secretary of State this afternoon is of major importance. It envisages a major piece of legislation, and it is not acceptable that such a piece of legislation should be tacked on to the end of a Bill that is timetabled and guillotined in Committee.
Would it not be better if you, Mr. Speaker, now ruled that you would not allow amendments to be tacked on, but insisted that the Government went through the legislative process, as they do for everything else, issued a White Paper on their proposals to break up and destroy ILEA, and then proposed a Bill after consultation on the White Paper, instead of allowing the destruction of education in inner London to be rushed through in a few weeks on an already guillotined Bill?

Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are not these points of order rather synthetic? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] However the Bill is framed, the education of children in London's schools and of adults in further education, higher education and other educational institutes in London will continue. The method of organisation is subsidiary to that. The fact that Opposition Members are calling for an emergency debate seems somewhat synthetic. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will not respond to them.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) would expect me to respond to any point of order that he put to me. I have an obligation to respond to them all.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Page 556 of "Erskine May" refers to proceedings in passing public Bills and says:
An amendment … which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on the second reading is not admissible.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that today's proposition absolutely reverses the principle of part III of the Bill which received a Second Reading. That is one reason why the points of order we are making today are not at all synthetic. We seek your guidance, not necessarily today but certainly in the course of discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that it will help, but I shall hear it.

Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) read out a reference to an amendment. Surely it is not possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule upon an amendment before that amendment has been tabled. Even if it were possible for you to rule on an


amendment that had not been tabled, the ruling would be given not by you, Mr. Speaker, but by the Chairman of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that once, and I was about to say it again.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me take one point of order at a time. If an amendment is proposed in a Standing Committee, it is a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee to decide whether that amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Dobson: I understand your ruling, but surely the question of the acceptability of amendments in Committee is a material consideration for the House when deciding what to do about the Government's proposition. It is an attempt to introduce new legislation that totally reverses the propositions that were accepted by the House on Second Reading. We put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that would be a material consideration for you to bear in mind when considering any future applications under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with that matter.

Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, there was a money resolution. I understand that amendments cannot be tabled in Committee that would exceed the limits set out in the money resolution. If the money resolution, as presently designed, is exceeded, would the Government have to come back to the Floor of the House and move a second money resolution, or could it be taken in Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I can do no more than to say, yet again, that if amendments proposed by the Government go beyond the scope of the Bill, they will be out of order, but that would be a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Speaker: In view of the late start of this Adjournment debate on a very important matter in which a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part, I ask for brief contributions, please.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): Although modestly cloaked as a debate on the Adjournment, the issues involved in our discussion today are of very great significance, I hope, if I may express at least one personal opinion, that this will prove to be one of the best occasions in the House, when we have the opportunity to debate a major subject without the pressure of reaching an immediate set of conclusions, but in a way that helps to influence and strengthen the standing of whatever conclusions are eventually reached.
I assure the House that that is the spirit in which the Government approach the debate. On a number of issues, the White Paper sets out considered Government proposals for legislation, on which we remain anxious to take full account of the views of the House in shaping the precise form of the Bill which in due course will follow. The Government have neither expressed, nor seek to express, a collective view on the issue of research. They seek to provide, by discussion of the White Paper and by proposals for alternative draft clauses in the subsequent Bill, a basis for the House to reach a properly considered conclusion.
Despite the size of the subject, I see my task in quite limited terms — principally to set the scene for the expression of views by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall seek — my aim has been reinforced by what you, Mr. Speaker, said a few moments ago—to be correspondingly brief, thereby maximising the opportunties for those views to be expressed. I am conscious—as I observed recently in another context — that being Minister for Health gives me no special status to advise on matters of conscience or morality, such as those involved in our discussion.
In the 10 years since the birth of the first test-tube baby, subjects of embryo research and in-vitro fertilisation—to give test-tube babies the proper terminology — have rarely been out of the news. That is not surprising, in view of the revolutionary developments that they signify. These are very difficult, new topics and touch on issues on which most people hold strong personal views. I have no doubt that today's debate will reflect the various strands of opinion.
Perhaps I should observe that, alongside those who hold particular views about embryo research, our debate will obviously be followed closely by the many thousands of couples who suffer from infertility. Despite the increased independence of women, and the more general acceptance—at least in some quarters—of the other life styles, the ideal of the nuclear family — father, mother and children — is still the ambition of many, indeed most, people in our western society. It pervades our everyday lives in countless ways, and it comes home strongly to those couples who cannot, for whatever reason, have children as a particularly painful issue. Their


emotions and desires are not matters that any hon. Member would wish to dismiss or ignore, whatever conclusions may ultimately be drawn from the debate.
Medical treatments are constantly being improved. For some, a course of drugs may be all that is required to enable them to conceive naturally. However, for most infertile couples the problem is less easy to treat, and for many there may as yet be no answer at all. The treatments for infertility covered by the White Paper "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation" include some of the most advanced treatments yet available. They bring hope to couples who have tried all else to no avail, and to some they have undoubtedly brought great joy and happiness. However, as we are all aware, at the same time they raise questions for society as a whole—questions of an ethical, social and legal nature. It is those difficult issues that we all have to face, particularly all of us in this place, to whom it falls to determine the legal framework.
The wider public debate on the subject began in earnest with the publication in 1984 of the report of the inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology set up by the Health Ministers, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and chaired by Dame Mary — now Baroness—Warnock. That report still stands as the prime document in the debate. It would be an understatement to say that not everyone agrees with all its conclusions, but there is fairly general acknowledgement of the acclaim that it has received, in this country and internationally, as a survey of some of the problems and issues. It has certainly provoked deep thought and a good deal of response from many individuals and organisations, and it remains the foundation of the discussions that have subsequently taken place.
The publication of that report was followed by debate both in this House and in the other place. Many responses were received, the chief focus of debate being embryo research and surrogacy. A clear consensus emerged at an early stage on commercial surrogacy, and the Government felt in a position to make a suitably quick response in the form of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985, which banned commercial surrogacy agencies and advertising of, or for, surrogacy arrangements. Parliament has also had a number of opportunities to consider embryo research as a result of a series of private Members' Bills.
Surrogacy and human embryo research remain important topics. However, the Warnock report covered a far wider range of issues which also deserve detailed consideration, and which were somewhat overlooked in the aftermath of the report. To try to redress the balance, the Government published a consultation document in December 1986 specifically inviting views on matters such as the nature of the licensing authority, storage and access by children to information about donors.
Many responses were received — again revealing a wide variety of views. But despite that wide variety of views, on the strength of the responses received—taking the consultation process as a whole—the Government felt able to make proposals on the direction that legislation should take. My right hon. Friend announced the publication of the White Paper in November last year.
It could be seen as a rather leisurely process—overleisurely, some might think. I believe, however, that we shall find that this steady, even slow, progress towards legislation, which has been open at all stages to debate, will prove invaluable in the face of fast-developing and

extremely sensitive and difficult issues. I expect it to result in the ultimate formulation of legislation that is clear and effective on matters on which sufficient consensus can be found, but does not go too far, too fast, on those on which society is still forming its view.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I may be anticipating what my right hon. Friend is going to say. However, in view of the concerned letters that I have received, will he assure the House that he would see the licensing authority as a totally impartial body, not weighted in favour of embryonic research or, necessarily, against it?

Mr. Newton: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that that is our aim. It is possible that. in the course of the debate, hon. Members will wish to express views about how that can best be achieved, and those are precisely the sort of views that we would wish to take into account in any further thinking.
I should like to outline some of the basic principles underlying the White Paper's proposals. On one matter there is well-nigh universal agreement— indeed, I hope that it is universal—that due respect must be given in law to the presence of human life. That means, unequivocally, that the early embryo must be protected in law. However, it must be acknowledged that there are significant differences of opinion on the extent of protection that should be afforded to the embryo. Tension still remains between the need to protect the early embryo and the need to offer as much help as possible to infertile couples, or couples at risk of passing on severe hereditary diseases to their children. I-low that tension is to be resolved is for Parliament to decide.
As I have already said, the Government have decided that their role is to provide the House with alternative clauses, and to encourage as informed a debate as possible on the issues at stake—which they have done through their consultation document, their White Paper, and which they hope to advance further through today's debate.
A second principle underlying the White Paper is the desire not to cut off hope unnecessarily from infertile couples and others who may be helped by the new developments. The procedures exist; we must recognise that they will continue to exist; and desperate couples will continue to find help somewhere. The general view emerging from consultation was that treatments like in-vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination by donor should be allowed to continue in this country, but under strict regulation to ensure that there are proper safeguards.
A further guiding principle is that the welfare of children born as a result of such treatments must be of paramount importance. They, as much as every other child, have a right to a sense of identity and a secure family life. Society as a whole, in permitting the treatments to be developed, has a responsibility to the children born as a result of those treatments, and must ensure that they have the best chance possible of achieving that sense of identity and secure family life. That is why the White Paper proposes that counselling should be statutorily available to all couples considering these treatments, and to children who subsequently wish to find out some information regarding their genetic background. For the time being, we propose that the donors should remain anonymous, but we must recognise that public attitudes may change, as they did with adoption. In the future, it may seem right to allow the child access to the donor's name.
That brings me to another point, which I hope the House will keep in mind, if it agrees with me. This is a fast-moving issue, and it would be wise to avoid legislation that is completely inflexible and cannot assimilate developments as they occur. That is why the White Paper suggests that, while the basic remit of the proposed statutory licensing authority should be set out in the primary legislation, it should be adjustable by regulations. In addition, a number of finer points of detail should be left to the authority to determine in its code of practice, which will be laid before Parliament.
We must aim to provide the licensing authority with a clear legal framework within which to work, and, while providing a line of accountability to Parliament, we must not try to do the authority's work for it. In the decisions that it makes, and the advice and guidelines that it gives to both Government and clinicians, it must be genuinely independent, and seen to be independent. I reiterate what I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) about the need for genuinely balanced advice from a balanced and representative membership.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the ultimate responsibility for the work of the statutory licensing body will be his and that he will be answerable to the House?

Mr. Newton: I think it is clear that the framework that we propose would provide a proper line of accountability to Parliament. If my hon. Friend feels that that is not sufficiently clear in the White Paper, we shall wish to take account of any views that she expresses in the debate. However, if she is asking me whether Ministers could, on their own responsibility, overrule decisions of the statutory licensing authority within that framework, I do not think that that is appropriate, or indeed that Parliament would want it.

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for the enforcement of which the Home Secretary is responsible. Ultimately, the responsibility rests here. Is the Minister going to tell us that less responsibility will be vested in Parliament—as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) suggested—in respect of the human embryo, a human being, than for animals used in scientific experiments?

Mr. Newton: We all deeply respect my right hon. Friend's feelings on these matters. We shall listen with great care to the points that he will no doubt make in the debate.
Ultimately, anything which happens under statute and which, in the broadest sense, falls within his remit, a Minister must be prepared to account for to the House —but that is a different matter—if only to explain why he feels it right not to change the legislation or to undertake some other action urged upon him. There is a clear distinction between that and the suggestion—I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) was making it and whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was picking it up—that Ministers should have the right, on their own responsibility, to overrule decisions

of a statutory licensing authority of the kind proposed in the White Paper. But if it is the view of my hon. Friends that that should be the case, I shall, at the very least, undertake to consider what they say in the course of the debate.
I am conscious of the desire of the House that I should be reasonably brief, so let me deal now with some of the key points in the White Paper. First, its proposals for statutory regulation concentrate on procedures or treatments which require regulation primarily because of the ethical as well as the social and legal problems that they raise. Thus, the proposals would apply to embryos fertilised or maintained outside the body; also to donated gametes, that is, sperm and eggs, and any treatments involving them, such as artificial insemination by donor, or gamete intra-fallopian transfer, using donated gametes.
The proposed regulatory mechanism that we have just discussed briefly is the independent statutory licensing authority. That is really the keystone of this aspect of the White Paper and is one subject on which there was a wide measure of agreement among those who responded to the consultation document. Seventy per cent. of respondents were in favour of a statutory authority, which included the existing Voluntary Licensing Authority set up two and a half years ago by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to provide voluntary professional self-regulation of IVF and embryo research.
I say again that the statutory licensing authority would be entirely independent in that it would have the power to grant and revoke licences for all of the regulated procedures without reference to Parliament or Ministers. However—I hope this will give some reassurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point —Ministers will retain certain important powers, including the appointment and termination of membership. At least half the members of the authority will be lay members and at least one third will be doctors or scientists expert in this area. Licences would be required for all clinics offering any of the regulated treatments or procedures and, if Parliament permits research at all, for all research projects. It would be a criminal offence to undertake any of these procedures without a licence.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those medical and research-based members of the statutory licensing authority would not all be 100 per cent. in favour of embryo experimentation, and that there should be a balance among the scientific members as well as the lay members of the authority?

Mr. Newton: I can assure my hon. Friend that careful consideration will be given to membership issues within the powers granted by the House. Today's debate is precisely to enable my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to make their points on these issues which we can then take into account as we develop the legislation and in the course of any action which would subsequently take place.
Let me deal now with the proposal in the White Paper to which most attention has been and no doubt will continue to be paid—embryo research. There is some important measure of agreement here. There are some, mainly speculative, areas of possible research which most agree should be prohibited. Those include the creation of embryos with certain predetermined characteristics by


cloning, and the creation of hybrid creatures, half man, half beast. Such experimentation, if it ever took place, would be regarded as ethically unacceptable and the Government—this will be welcomed by nearly all hon. Members—are committed to making such procedures a criminal offence, even if Parliament were to accept research in general.
However, there are other areas of research which, while recognising the need for controls, some, but by no means all, consider to be ethically acceptable in view of the benefits they could bring. Those include research to develop infertility treatments, to prevent certain congenital disorders or to improve contraceptive techniques. I do not need and I shall not seek to rehearse the arguments of those who believe such research should be permitted, nor of those who wish all research to be a criminal offence. To assist the House, they are set out in annex B of the White Paper and I am sure that many speakers will address that issue.
The Government's position is clear, and I make no apology for reiterating it. On a matter such as this, where hon. Members are likely to hold strong personal beliefs of a moral or religious nature, the Government do not take a collective view. In order that in this instance Parliament may be completely free to decide on the future of embryo research, the White Paper proposes that the draft legislation will include alternative clauses on embryo research—one banning all research, the other permitting it under strict controls. Our aim throughout has been to assist the choice which each and every individual hon. Member will have to make.

Mr. W. Benyon: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the position is moving so fast that there really is a need to put these proposals into law at the earliest possible moment? Can he assure me that such legislaton will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, my hon. Friend has some experience as part of the usual channels, so he will know that the Government have clearly stated their intention to legislate in the present Parliament. He will equally know that all the conventions, apart from anything else, would preclude me from making a statement as definite as the one that he is seeking from me about what or might not be in the Queen's Speech for any particular Session. I hope that he will acknowledge that.
The White Paper, like the Warnock report before it, deals with far more than just embryo research. It includes important proposals covering the donation and storage of gametes and embryos, further clarification of the law on surrogacy, counselling and the legal status of children born following donation of gametes — the last being additional to the provisions already made, with regard to children born following sperm donation, in the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which is due to come into force later this year in England and Wales. While less attention is usually paid to these matters than to those on which I touched a few moments ago, they are none the less vital to the people that they will affect, and I hope that today's debate will give our proposals in these areas due consideration.
Today's debate is an important stage in our progress towards legislation. As I have just said, we are committed to introducing legislation during this Parliament. We owe

it to the infertile couples of Britain, and to all interested in the matter, to conduct our debate in an informed and responsible manner, recognising that the ideal, if it can be achieved, is a framework which will allow the proper use of the knowledge that we have, or can gain, to assist people to a sense of fulfilment in their lives, while clearly protecting the fundamental values on which our society is based, not least the respect due to human life itself.
The House needs no further reminder from me of the size and difficulty of the task ahead of us in legislating in this area, but I am sure that we should make that attempt and then translate the work that underlies the White Paper into a well-considered statute. I hope that today's debate will help to achieve just that.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I am glad that we are now having a debate on the White Paper on human fertilisation and embryo research which has arisen, as the Minister has said, from the consultation conducted by the Government on the proposals in the Warnock committee's report.
I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Baroness Warnock and the members of her committee. They were facing, in a disciplined and responsible way, complex issues raised by advances in medical science. Their report has aroused considerable controversy, as it would do, in deciding how best, and with what guidelines, society should tackle new concepts which up to now have been beyond our comprehension. They were divided in some of their views but they gave us a lot to think about.
It was unfortunate that some hon. Members decided, following the publication of the Warnock report in 1984, to isolate their particular objection to one aspect of it—research on pre-embryos — and thereby give the impression that that was all that the report was about. To use private Members' Bills to legislate on one aspect—however crucial or controversial—is not the right way to deal with this matter. It is for the Government to draft much more comprehensive legislation — as they now intend to do—with all the resources and advice that they have available. Parliament should not be required o make important choices with lasting effects on women and their partners, families and future children, in isolation, in an ill-considered way based largely on prejudice and with badly drafted proposals. That was true of the Powell Bill a year or two ago and it is true of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
Many other issues arise from the Warnock report and the White Paper. On the assumption that the Government will legislate on all of them later, I shall touch on some of them now. I support the setting up of a statutory licensing authority and I have taken that view since the Warnock report was published. Clearly, the establishment of such an authority is the only way to ensure good practice. I welcomed the setting up of the voluntary licensing authority, because it showed a sense of responsibility on the part of doctors. However, its performance has shown that the medical profession is, frankly, unable to impose objective controls on some of its members with respect to in-vitro fertilisation.
In theory, the decision not to enshrine too many fine details in law but to leave them to guidance on good practice is a good one. In practice it would depend on the composition of the statutory licensing authority at any one time and on whether changes in composition are allowed to result in sudden changes in recommendations. As the


Minister acknowledged, there must be a range of experience on the statutory licensing authority — the White Paper proposes that —and it should include lay representatives. However, those lay representatives must not end up as separate factions with irreconcilable views, as happened on some aspects in the Warnock committee. The interventions that we have heard seem to suggest that some hon. Members want differing views to be represented on the statutory licensing authority. If the House has taken a view about that licensing authority's functions, its members should reflect that view. How do the Government propose to tackle the possibility that there might be separate factions on the statutory licensing authority — even among non-lay and non-medical members? Presumably, the authority will include professional sociologists and some high-profile professional sociologists today oppose such treatments in any form that is practised. It would be a pity if the authority became polarised.
The Government propose that there should be a reasonable balance between men and women. I hope that the Minister recognises that the appointment of a handful of lay and professional women will be regarded as nothing more than a token gesture if there is a preponderance of men on the statutory licensing authority. We have to reflect the society in which we live, and there is a wealth of talent, experience and sound common sense among the majority of the population — women — from which to draw. After all, because of their child-bearing function, women are the ones who are principally affected. They should, therefore, form a strong part of the statutory licensing authority.
Let me pick out one of the functions of the authority for comment. I hope that the guidelines will ensure that counsellors are independent and trained in non-directive counselling. It is not the function of a counsellor to push the patient in one direction or another but to ensure that she understands what is in prospect. The woman—and her family, if they are with her when the consultation takes place—must be informed that there may be delays and disappointments but that it is to be hoped that there will be rewards as well. The counsellor's job is to ensure that the woman and her partner make an informed choice.
I seek clarification on the provision of funds for the statutory licensing authority's operation. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says that a contribution will be made from public funds but that
it will be expected to meet a large proportion of its expenditure from fees collected in connection with its licensing activity.
How will that work? Will NHS clinics offering infertility services be required to pay fees to the licensing authority, part of whose funds will come from the public purse?
I understand that the authority will be funded partly from private funds, but part of its money will come from public funds. The Medical Research Council, which is funded from public money, supports research aimed at improving in-vitro fertilisation techniques and reducing the risk of genetic diseases. Its function is to undertake research that will improve people's lives, including the medical care available to them. Will the M RC be required to pay money to the statutory licensing authority out of

the public funds allocated to it to fulfil its function? If so, that seems an unnecessary and bureaucratic way of bookkeeping, which might cost more in the end.
I am not opposed to infertility clinics in the private sector contributing to the work of the authority. They make money. However, I hope that they will not pass on the additional cost to their patients, who already pay heavily for treatment. Three of my constituents undergoing private infertility treatment have told me that they have had to remortgage their houses to do so. As far as possible, I would like the service to be available to all women, whatever their income, so I hope that we shall examine that matter.
In all this, the person to be considered is the patient. Women and their partners who seek advice and help because of infertility problems must be assured of a free service under the National Health Service. At the moment, the NHS is in crisis and we have all been arguing and pleading for more resources for patient care. I do not believe that infertility treatment should be regarded as a luxury to be paid for, because if it is, only the better-off will be able to afford it.
I have to confess to being unsure whether children who are born following artificial insemination by donorAID—or egg/embryo donation should have the absolute right to information about their origins. My instinct is that parents should be able to choose for themselves whether to tell the child, and I suspect that, in practice, that is what will happen in most cases. There has been a good deal of public debate about this issue. Some feel that the child should have the right to know his or her genetic origins and point to experience in adoption to back up that view. However, adoption is not exactly the same as AID and I believe that we need to examine the matter further before we enshrine such a right in law. In the White Paper the Government acknowledge the problem and propose to keep it under review. That is the correct step to take.
The most controversial part of the Warnock report is that concerning whether research should be carried out on pre-embryos. Every woman who is pregnant wants to produce a normal, healthy baby. Two weeks ago, when we debated the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, some of the debate centred around that theme. A great deal was said about the tests that can now be carried out, amniocentesis, ultrasound and a new technique that will be available in a few years' time, chorionic villus sampling. That technique is still in its early stages of development.
The termination of a wanted pregnancy, even if it is done at an early stage, can be distressing. During our debate on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill much was said about developing techniques to detect severe handicap at the earliest possible stage. Indeed, such techniques were discussed by some hon. Members opposed to pre-embryo research as part of their argument for abortions to be carried out at the earliest possible stage.
Some women who know that they are at risk either because they or their partners carry a disorder would like to feel that they can start a pregnancy in the sure and certain knowledge that it can be carried right through and that the baby will be born healthy. The new research that is now being undertaken could be the answer. That includes screening for genetic defects before the embryo begins to develop, which is on the 14th day. Genetic defects are a common cause of handicap and the death of babies. Genetic defects and congenital malformations occur in 2 to 5 per cent. of all live births and cause between


40 to 50 per cent. of deaths in childhood. The technology has been developed in a relatively short time, but in the foreseeable future it may he possible to detect those pre-embryos that would develop specific disorders such as Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, Hunter's syndrome, Hurler's syndrome and Huntington's disease.
Are those hon. Members who are opposed to research unwilling to face up to their responsibilities to help those couples who want to take advantage of the available research? Are they so prejudiced that they will deny couples the chance of the baby they so dearly want? One of the worst inherited diseases is severe combined immune deficiency. The baby is born apparently quite perfect. However, pre-programmed by the genes inherited by its parents, it has no immunity to disease. The baby appears healthy at the beginning, when protected by the antibodies of its mother, but it will suddenly die from its first infection, usually after a few months. That is a great tragedy for any family.
In December 1987 two doctors completed tests that may eventually help doctors to diagnose the presence of combined immune deficiency in a human egg only a few days after fertilisation. More research is needed on human fertilised eggs before the suffering caused by such incurable, fatal diseases can be eased. Everyone should search their hearts to decide whether they should say that research to seek solutions for such handicaps should not take place because of their prejudice against pre-embryo research.
Research using pre-embryos is still at a relatively early stage. However, many women have been helped as a result of improvements in test-tube baby treatment. As infertility affects at least one in 10 couples and pre-embryo research has been so beneficial in the development of IVF I believe that that research is essential if the present low success rate is to be improved. Such research is also likely to help those with hormone problems and women whose early embryos are not properly implanted. We must not forget that many women miscarry because the pre-embryo and the subsequent foetus are malformed. Such miscarriages occur naturally, but I am sure that none of us would want to go through one or more miscarriages with the accompanying distress. Research could enable doctors to detect the reason for some miscarriages and, I hope, to prevent them in the future.
I hope that hon. Members have had the opportunity to read a serious article written by Dr. Anne McLarendirector of the Medical Research Council's mammalian development unit — in the "New Socialist" of 10 December 1987. [HON. MEMBERS:"New Socialist"?] I apologise, I meant the "New Scientist". She might well have written an article in the "New Socialist". That article is well worth reading. It is highly technical, but it demonstrates the advances that have been made and could be made in the future.
The White Paper states that the Government are proposing to table alternative draft clauses when a Bill comes before Parliament. It is rather unusual for a Government, at the first printing of a Bill, to propose two separate concepts contained in separate clauses rather than choosing one and having an amendment put down to it. However, if that practice will make the debate clearer, so be it. When we come to vote on this matter I shall certainly vote in favour of research, with safeguards.

Frankly, I find it hard to understand the moral objections to research on the pre-embryo. It is the size of a needle point and hardly visible to the human eye.
A great deal was said about the moral questions involved with pre-embryo research in the House of Lords on 15 January. That debate is well worth reading. Indeed, the Archbishop of York discussed the problem of the status of the embryo and spoke of the need
to ascribe full personal value to human matter which possess none of the attributes which normally belong to persons." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1462.]
There appeared to be consensus about that problem.
I fail to understand those hon. Members who are calling for an end to late abortions simply by lowering the present upper time limit to 18 weeks or fewer when some of their contributions to the debate a couple of weeks ago accepted that abortions should be permissible as early as possible. I know that many hon. Members are opposed to abortion as such and I respect their view. However, they are supporting the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which allows abortions in certain restricted circumstances. I do not understand how they can adopt that position and yet oppose research at a much earlier stage of development.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I agree with almost everything that the hon. Lady has said. She quoted the Archbishop of York and in that same speech he also said:
I regard as totally unrealistic and indeed immoral any proposal to continue in-vitro fertilisation without a proper backing in research".—[Official Report, House of Lords 15 January 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1461.]
Will the hon. Lady confirm that she believes that the opportunities for childless couples to have babies, as a result of IVF, is something that the House must support?

Ms. Richardson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I agree with most of what was said in the House of Lords and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has also read that debate.
There is a connection between this debate and the debate that we have had about abortion rights. I believe that it is curious that the same people who are now accepting that abortion should take place, but at an earlier stage, are not prepared to take that argument to what I believe is its logical conclusion and to try to seek the causes of genetic handicap at the earliest possible stage.
I would guess, noting the hon. Members who are waiting to speak, that we shall shortly hear how they manage to do that. It is curious that some of the early postcards that arrived in October last year in the mail mountain organised by SPUC advised voting for the Alton Bill but against medical research. That seems odd: that Bill is an 18-week Bill, so I do not know how the two ideas can be reconciled.
As well as support for controlled medical research from informed and distinguished scientists, doctors and the Upper House, support also comes from many organisations concerned with helping the handicapped. They have shown their concern by speaking out for research They include such highly respected bodies as Mencap, and last December they reconfirmed that they were in favour of continuing medical research. I am a member of an organisation called PROGRESS which has brought together a number of organisations—some of them of handicapped people, some of hospitals and some of


concerned people. We have been trying to put forward the message that controlled and accountable research can help us all—and the future of this country's children.
Within and outside this House there are fundamentalists who would outlaw all research; and there are fundamentalists at the other end of the spectrum who would allow unlimited and uncontrolled research. I support neither group. I hope that Parliament will eventually take the view that research on pre-embryos should be permitted — with proper controls and accountability—to scientists and clinicians. Parliament has a role to play in protecting the public interest, and although 14 days has been proposed as the limit for such research, the White Paper rightly acknowledges that new developments might make exceptions permissible, and we may include those by affirmative resolutions in the future. I agree that we must have a certain flexibility of approach and not be hide-bound by a specific date.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I wholly share the hon. Lady's view that research should be allowed and controlled. Does she agree that the clear and available publication of what is being done, and how it is being done, is of fundamental importance to the control of research?

Ms. Richardson: I quite agree. Parliament and public alike are entitled to know what research is being carried out and what the prognoses for that research are. That cannot be done immediately, because all research is inevitably slow, but we must have the opportunity to know what is going on and what it might lead to.
We must bear in mind the need for a properly resourced National Health Service to do the necessary work of research and treatment, and to ensure that funding of those things is not done by private, unaccountable bodies. Funding for research of this sort must not, however, be at the expense of other commitments. To judge by the way that the Government have so far failed to recognise that, whatever extra money they have put into the National Health Service, that has not been enough to stop patient treatment crumbling. I am worried about their willingness to find more money for research and treatment in this area. Couples who suffer from infertility problems will take that point to heart. They believe that they are as much patientsto-be as people undergoing other sorts of treatment in the National Health Service. Parliament must take these momentous decisions about the future of infertile couples and assess their value to women, their partners and the children of the future. We should demand that public funding be available for this research.
Like the Minister, I hope that we shall have a sensible, calm debate today on all the important points raised in the White Paper. I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate and hearing what the Government propose to include in the Bill that they will bring forward later this year.

Sir Bernard Braine: I agree on one point with the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson): I am glad that we are having this debate.
I shall go at once to the fundamental issue before the House. In a debate on the Warnock report in 1984, I recall saying:

the committee performed its task without first considering the very question, on which all else depends—the nature of the human embryo".—[Official Report, 23 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 539.]
To put it mildly, the committee was uncertain about the human embryo. It did not answer the question whether the embryo is human, and, if so, deserving of special consideration from the outset, although it described it as such. It did not dare to say that the embryo was not human, because we all know that it is capable of becoming a child, an adolescent and an adult, and is incapable of becoming anything else.
Because it could not answer many of the questions that it posed, the committee jumped over them:
Instead of trying to answer these questions directly we have therefore gone straight to the question of how it is right to treat the human embryo.
How odd that the Warnock committee was ready to consider treating the human embryo without being clear about what it really was. So odd was it that some members of the committee could not stomach the recommendations to which they were asked to agree. Led by Professor John Marshall, the distinguished professor of clinical neurology at the Institute of Neurology, they signed a minority report saying that there should be no experimentation on the human embryo and they gave what were, to many of us, convincing reasons. They recommended that
the embryo of the human species be afforded special protection in law".
They were not opposed—neither am I; nor are those who share my views— to IVF procedures designed to overcome the distressing condition of infertility. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend, the former Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, who introduced a Bill on the subject which obtained a substantial majority on Second Reading.
Again, the Warnock committee sounded an uncertain trumpet on other matters. Yes, there could be experimentation on human embryos, but only up to 14 days. Why 14?

Mr. Doug Henderson: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: Mr. Speaker enjoined upon us the duty of being as crisp as possible, because many hon. Members want to speak. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he can speak later in the debate. By holding me up, he may frustrate his own chances.
Why 14 days? Why should it be lawful to tamper with and destroy a human embryo in the first fortnight of its existence and not afterwards? The hon. Member for Barking mentioned the Abortion Act 1967. It is lawful under that Act to destroy every year thousands of perfectly normal healthy children without any protection under the law. The pro-experiment lobby—and the hon. Member for Barking — has argued that such experiments are necessary to combat a whole range of genetic disorders. It is a fallacy to believe that embryos, at such an early stage of their existence, can be of any help with such disorders as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Down's syndrome. At 14 days the embryo has not developed to the point at which it can yield any helpful information. Leading specialists have made it plain that 14 days is not long enough.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I have not finished the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will listen to me carefully and make a more informed speech when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In this kind of debate, we must develop what we know and we feel, and that is what I propose to do. I shall not give way, and I serve notice to that effect. I am not frightened of my hon. Friend or of anybody else. If I am forced to give way, I shall do so—

Mr. Thurnham: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: —but if I did so I should not have the support and encouragement of the Chair. My hon. Friend must listen.
When Lady Warnock was pressed on the issue of 14 days, she said that it would do for a start. What precisely did that mean? We are anxious to hear the Government's view about such uncertainty. We are on a downward slide with these people and we do not know where it will end.
The Warnock report is also uncertain about other fundamental issues. Paragraph 12.2 deals with public concern about trans-species fertilisation. The report states that certain experimentation in this field should be permissible, but acknowledges that the possibilities
have caused public concern about the prospect of developing hybrid half-human creatures.
What did the report mean by going on to say that some experimentation in this field would be possible? Of course, that will need strict regulation by a licensing authority. The report even referred to the possibility that human embryos could be used to test the effects of newly-developed drugs or other substances that may possibly be toxic or cause abnormalities, and it went on to point out the deep concern that this might be exploited commercially. Yet paragraph 12.5 states:
We concluded however that there may be very particular circumstances where the testing of such substances on a very small scale may be justifiable.
In short, the end justifies the means. The House must forgive me if I recall the defence of the murderer of that brave Polish priest, Jerzy Popieluszko:
I thought that, by doing a little evil, I might prevent a larger one.
Although the Government are bold and adventurous in some respects, it is no wonder that against that background they have taken over three years to come up with a White Paper. Even then they are so uncertain that they put forward two alternative courses of action—to experiment or not to experiment.
What is one to make of the White Paper? I certainly welcome the first proposal, on page 6, to prohibit research on the human embryo. I reject the second proposal, to permit research subject to licence by a statutory licensing authority. Indeed, the second proposal begs an important question. To permit research on the human embryo gives man the power to play God, and so the Government propose that God should be regulated by a statutory body. Who then will regulate that body? Currently the Medical Research Council monitors such research on a voluntary basis, without the benefit of a statutory watchdog. The work is carried out by at least one distinguished figure whose early claim to fame rested on experiments with live human foetuses, injected with steroids, which were then killed and dissected. The facts are contained in the medical literature. That is the kind of watchdog employed at present and it explains the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health.
Is this the sort of policeman we can expect if experimentation is controlled by the new statutory body? Will it be directly answerable to Parliament? If not, who will ensure that that statutory body will authorise only ethical procedures? We are entitled to ask that question. Parliament is the only real safeguard against the abuse of power. The judges and the press play an important role, but this surely is a matter for Parliament—the buck stops here.
If the Government's first proposal becomes law, it will not prohibit in-vitro fertilisation. That would continue and I am in favour of that, but I cannot support much else in the White Paper. Ever since the Warnock report and the debates on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which received so large a majority on Second Reading but was later frustrated by one means or another, we have been regaled with promises of cures for genetic diseases if Parliament would allow experiments on embryos to continue. I respect the views of the hon. Member for Barking, as she has been consistent over the years in hoping that Parliament will allow experimentation on the human embryo to continue. I am sorry to see the White Paper give so much credence to this point with little or no consideration of alternative methods of finding the same information. I would remind the House that no one in the scientific community supporting research has come up with any real evidence to support their claims that the human embryo will provide answers to genetic arid congenital diseases, particularly not in respect of experimentation on the human embryo in the first 14 days.
The all-party pro-life group, of which I have the honour to be chairman, is advised by a distinguished group of scientists and doctors, including Professor John Marshall — a member of the Warnock committee and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists — Sir John Dewhurst and Professor Erwin Chargaff who, in work on the cell in the late 1940s, discovered material that was crucial to Crick and Watson in formulating their model of DNA. The group is also advised by Professor Jerome Lejeune, one of the most distinguished geneticists in the world. Professor Lejeune's work on Down's syndrome is well known, and he has been working towards an amelioration of that disease without the use of the human embryo.
Our scientific and medical advisory committee has advised us that there is much potential for research involving gametes, ovum and sperm separately. On cures for infertility, we have been advised that there is much scope for research on the biochemistry of the reproductive system, as in-vitro fertilisation is applicable to a minority of cases of infertility and there is a great need for research to be directed to the majority. Research to enhance the future growth and development of a particular individual human embryo is also acceptable.
In evidence submitted to my right hon. Friend's Department, in response to its consultation paper, Dr. John McLean, the distinguished secretary of our scientific and medical advisory committee, outlined an alternative method to in-vitro fertilisation for the treatment of infertility. This method does not involve super-ovulation; it works with the natural reproductive cycle.
One of the papers submitted in response to the consultation paper by Professor Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the Universite René Descartes in Paris, stated:


My prediction concerning effective research without the use of human embryos has been amply demonstrated by numerous investigators in several countries. Vitamin supplementation in early pregnancy has been shown to protect the embryo from neural tube defects in spina bifida. The new developments in molecular biology applied to cells taken from adult patients with cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease and retinoblastoma have also generated a much greater understanding of the genetic factors responsible for these diseases as well as their location within the human genome. In addition, there is now the possibility of treating and curing certain genetic blood diseases with bone marrow transplantation. None of these achievements have involved the use of human embryos.
At the end of his paper, he added:
The proponents of the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig were mistaken when they put forward to the public this cruel suggestion: either you accept our philosophy that embryos may be used or else you condemn families affected by genetic diseases and you wash your hands of their sorrows … Medicine is not forced to choose between playing Herod and Pontius Pilate. There are possible lines of research in full accordance with medical norms and already they are being demonstrated as fruitful.
In short, those who share my view of this grave matter are not opposed to research, but we reject that which lessens human dignity and reduces the weakest and most vulnerable form of human life to the level of a laboratory rat. The House should know—I made a recent inquiry about this and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who knows about scientific procedures, will no doubt bear me out—that, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, an animal that is used for scientific investigation is granted more protection than we give to our own species. I am referring here to the aborted human foetus which is not protected by the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. That is disgraceful.
It is about time that people faced fundamental facts. I believe that by proceeding in this way the Government are putting the cart before the horse. We want to know what sort of horse it will be. We want to know who will constitute it—who will be the front legs and who will be the back legs. We want to know which alternative of the two before them the Government will choose.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his comments, save possibly on one point—that the Government could have been more positive on this matter. However, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I want them to be positive in different ways.
I take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about the slow progress that has been made in overcoming genetic diseases. Yes, that progress is slow, but it is equally slow by the alternative methods that the right hon. Gentleman advocates. Both methods take time but I suspect that both are showing ways forward. We who favour research want to make sure that no stone is left unturned in overcoming the crippling disabilities which have been referred to.
I should like to pick up the right hon. Gentleman's point about IVF techniques. He stressed that he supports the continuing availability of those techniques. However, those techniques, as currently used, would not have been available if there had not been research. The clause that is one alternative — the restrictive alternative — in the

White Paper could close the doors to research that could improve IVF techniques. Had it been on the statute book 20 years ago, who knows whether we would be in a position today to rejoice at some of the progress that has been made:
If and when the proposals in the White Paper become legislation, they will have a significant effect on many individuals and families. I thank the Minister for the way in which he presented the White Paper. I noticed his concluding remarks and the way in which he referred to using knowledge in a constructive and responsible manner. That should be the guideline as we seek our way forward.
I am mainly concerned with the implications of the White Paper for research, both in terms of improving the IVF technique to help women who desperately want children, and in terms of the prevention of congenital handicap. Such legislation can be very intrusive into the most sensitive areas of personal and family life and has a particular implication for women, who are often the most directly affected. In some areas, there may well be a case for new frameworks. However, if they are to be imposed by legislation, I suggest that it must be by general consent. That should be a guideline also.
I have a deep personal and family interest in this matter, from the point of view of research into congenital abnormalities and profound mental handicap. I want to concentrate on that aspect. Hon. Members may know that, as a family, we lost two boys arising from such a genetic condition. Alun was 13 when he died in December 1984, and Geraint was 12 when he died three months later. Their condition was the San Philippo type of mucopoly saccharide group of disorders. It caused profound mental and physical handicap and a short life expectation. It was necessary for both my wife and myself to be carriers, which we were, and as any other hon. Member may be but be unaware of that fact. Even then, when both of us were carriers, there was a 1: 4 chance that the children would be affected. Unfortunately, of our two elder boys, two out of two were affected. Mercifully, our third and fourth children are not affected. Thankfully, the risk of their children being affected with the San Philippo condition is very However, whereas we are lucky other parents with children suffering other varieties of condition must suffer the terrible anguish of knowing that their children's children may be afflicted by profound handicap.
I give my personal background so that hon. Members can appreciate the background against which I speak, and the reasons for my passionate advocacy that research into such types of disability must not be prevented, as would be the case if the House refused to accept the Warnock report recommendations and passed into law the restrictive clause outlined in the White Paper. Such a decision would close the shutters on the faint ray of hope for many families suffering genetic disorders. It would be an act of callous and calculated brutality against thousands of parents and potential parents who have to travel through life with the enormous and depressing responsibility of knowing that their offspring may be afflicted by a crippling condition. Further, those children, even if they are not disabled, have to go through their early adult life with the same uncertainty in regard to their offspring.
The relevance of the White Paper for such families is that medical research is moving ahead rapidly and holds the key to the possibility of overcoming at least some forms of such genetic disorders. It is still early days, and


it would be wrong to say that there is a panacea round the corner. However, it is equally wrong to deny that for a number of conditions, such as the Lesch Nyhan, which occurs fairly rarely, and Duchene muscular dystrophy, which is more commonplace, there is not a glimmer of hope that the frontiers of medical science are moving forward.
Medical science now holds out the possibility, at the pre-embryo stage, of identifying the pre-embryos which carry faulty genes and implanting into the uterus only those pre-embryos which appear not to be carrying the congenital disorder. Those pre-embryos are, in fact, a cluster of identical cells a few days old. That state is before the cells begin to differentiate; before implantation; before the primitive streak appears; before it is known whether the pre-embryo is to become a single foetus or twins and before individual identity. In the ordinary processes of life, such pre-embryos may develop in several ways. The majority will not become embryos, but will form the placenta. Some may develop into a malignant tumour. Some may be lost in the menstrual cycle and some may develop to become embryos. However, those pre-embryos carry the genetic information that cano help to identify potential congenital abnormality.
The technique now being developed involves the extraction of a few cells from the pre-embryo and their analysis by chromosome, gene-mapping and DNA identifying techniques to recognise possible genetic abnormalities. The technique has been shown to be effective in research on mice at the 8-cell stage. However, before using the technique on human beings, on a pre-embryo that is intended to be grown into a foetus and a baby, clearly careful research is needed on the human pre-embryo to make sure that we k now what we are doing.
The restrictive alternative in the White Paper would prevent such research from being undertaken and close the door on avoiding profound abnormalities such as the Lesch Nyhan syndrome. That is the syndrome for which we appear to be nearest to developing diagnostic techniques. The disease is caused by a lack of enzyme production associated with the X chromosome. It is possible to establish whether an embryo is deficient by looking at a single cell. Children with the Lesch Nyhan syndrome are normal at birth, but deteriorate rapidly, becoming mentally handicapped and self-mutilating and do not usually live beyond the teenage years. There is an application with an ethical committee waiting for the go-ahead to diagnose the Lesch Nyhan disease in pre-embryos. The outcome of the work could be the key to certain forms of cerebral palsy that are genetic, although not all cerebral palsy is genetic.
Another important disease which depends on enzyme tests is the Tay Sachs disease, which causes babies to die within two years of birth. It should be possible to develop a similar single cell test to establish whether Tay Sachs disease is present in an embryo. Two other major diseases where similar advances are likely are Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is carried by one in 20 people and is therefore a particularly serious problem. Many babies with cystic fibrosis die in infancy.
At a recent joint meeting of the all-party group for children and the all-party disablement group in the House, we were told by Professor Robert Winston of Hammersmith hospital of a case of a woman with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who had seen her brother die at the age of 15 and had two nephews with the disease.

She was determined not to have a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. She had two terminations of pregnancy and the stress on her and her husband caused her marriage to break up. She subsquently remarried and had three terminations. She decided that she could no longer try to have a child. However, if an embryo diagnosis were possible she would wish to try to establish a pregnancy using in-vitro fertilisation.
These techniques will enable couples, who would otherwise be too fearful of having a child suffering from a chronic disability, to have children. It will avoid abortions at a late stage — something which we must surely all agree is desirable. It is worth stressing the enormous strain which profound disability places on a family, particularly multiple profound disability. It leads to marriage break-ups and suicides, places tremendous strain on other siblings and has a massive financial, social and psychological effect on the family. I know this from my own personal experience.
People who are insensitive to such experience sometimes suggest that we who advocate such research to avoid profound disability somehow place a lesser value on disabled children. I find the suggestion deeply offensive. I hope that we loved our two boys as they were and for what they were. Our wish was not that Alun and Geraint had not been born but they could have been born without such heart-rending handicaps; that they could have lived full lives without suffering what they endured. After all, how many other hon. Members who have been lucky enough to have had normal children would have chosen for their children to be so severely handicapped?
The miracles of medical science now hold out the chance of a choice for families afflicted by profound genetic disorders. They may be able, very soon in some cases, to have a pre-embryo selected which is free from disability. Does the House in all seriousness believe that such a choice should be denied to them?
In earlier debates on the matter some hon. Members have opposed such research and have asserted that they are taking the Christian view on the issue. The implication is that those of us who support research are in some way unChristian. I find that allegation offensive, arrogant and ignorant. I quote from the Archbishop of York, to whom reference has been made, in a debate on this subject in another place, when he said:
First, let me say that I believe research must continue if in vitro fertilisation is to continue. One cannot separate them, and I regard as totally unrealistic and indeed immoral any proposal to continue in vitro Fertilisation without a proper backing in research.
This is for the simple and basic reason that imperfect techniques without a backing in research are bad practice medically and, I believe, wrong morally. There is a duty to patients to do the best which can be done, and any technique which involves the present traumas and uncertainties and wastage of embryos must be capable of improvement and therefore open to research.
He went on:
I believe that in the very early stage when personal attributes are non-existent and when identity is yet to be established there is room to allow experiment. But it has to be hedged round by safeguards which make it publicly obvious that respect for our human origins is being properly observed. I see this as the tenor of the Government's proposals, including the tentative proposal to allow embryo research, and I hope that we shall see legislation along these lines in the very near future." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 1988; Vol. 492, c. 1461–63.]


I refer also to a comment from the Spastics Society—we heard a moment ago the comment from Mencap—of which I am the president in Wales:
The Spastics Society has been concerned with the prevention of handicap and has promoted research and information to ensure that avoidable handicap is reduced. We would therefore be seriously concerned at any move which limited the possibility of detecting the causes of congenital handicap, or knowledge about factors leading to congenital disease …. The Spastics Society would be appalled at any move which led to such vital and important work being stopped. The alternative if this happens is that many preventable handicap births will continue. The Spastics Society will always fight for a better quality of life and for the dignity of disabled people. But we also want to see all preventable forms of handicap avoided.
I believe that doctors have been blessed with an enormous talent which, if it can be carefully developed, can avoid the pain, anguish and suffering of many profound congenital handicaps. The choice posed by the White Paper is whether those talents should be allowed to develop under strict control to the benefit of thousands of families or whether those talents, as in the parable of the talents, should be buried in the ground. The decision is critical for many vulnerable families, and the House should ponder long and deep before closing the door on their glimmer of hope.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It is a profound honour to follow the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), just as it is a profound honour to be a Member of the same House of Commons as him. I remember several years ago — no doubt he does — a speech made on a Friday morning by our former colleague, Keith Wickenden, on the subject of Down's syndrome, related to one of his children who was afflicted with that disease. In a debate of such seriousness and high quality, I cannot speak in the same personal terms as the hon. Gentleman. In reference to the quality of the debate, I refer particularly to the speech of the Minister, which I felt met the objections and concerns of the House with remarkable sensitivity. I speak with humility. I emphasise that the fact that a considerable amount of pre-embryo and in-vitro fertilisation research is done in Cambridge does not affect my view of the matter, because I am not making a constituency speech; my reasons are more personal.
First, I am in favour of the general principle of research, particularly into such subjects. I do not see that there is much of a role for Parliament or the Government to stop research which is positive. Secondly, the research has created life and has brought hope to the one in 10 families who are infertile—and in many cases not only hope but realisation. A friend of my family has recently given birth to a healthy daughter, after years of infertility and frustration, entirely as a result of the research and IVF. They are inseparable. I must disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), because they are inseparable.
Of the many letters that I have received, I shall quote one from a constituent, whose name I shall not give:
When we first wrote to you in October 1986, we were a couple among many others in this country. Frustrated and extremely desperate, as the result of not being able to have children naturally.

In less than three months from now, we expect the birth of our first long awaited child whom we totally owe to those whose work is now being threatened …
Pre-embryo research, which is carefully controlled and licensed, provides early indications of serious abnormalities, prevents miscarriages and avoids the need for late .abortions. I am slightly puzzled by the illogicality of some hon. Members who support the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, but at the same time try to deny the research that will prevent the necessity for late abortions.
The Bill is strongly supported by organisations closely involved in these matters. In that regard, Mencap has been particularly mentioned. For some couples this research is a lifeline. At Bourn Hall, which is just outside my constituency, we have just celebrated the birth of the 1,000th baby to be born through IVF and this research. I should emphasise that we are talking about research for life.
Fewer than one in 10 IVF insertions are successful. Unless research continues, the possibility of misfortune and tragedy will continue. This research makes it possible to discover the causes of diseases such as cystic fibrosis, spina bifida and other genetic diseases that have hitherto baffled us and caused such misery.
I join the hon. Member for Caernarfon in imploring the House to give its support to this research. We are the world leaders in it. For the sake of future generations, why should we throw it away?

Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in the debate. Many people in this country, like myself, doubt the need for any extensive or restrictive legislation. Whatever the nature of the legislation, it would be wrong to introduce it too quickly. I welcome the opportunity that is afforded by the publication of the White Paper to have a debate on the main issues involved in embryo research. These issues involve morality, and the appropriateness and practicalities involved.
Some people in this country — hon. Members will have been deluged with correspondence on this subject —argue that there is no moral justification, under any circumstances, for the premature termination by a scientist of the life of an embryo. They oppose all research that must inevitably lead to the disposal of an embryo by a scientist. I do not agree with that view, but I concede that there is an internal logic in it. If one takes that view, one cannot have option 1 in the White Paper, which has already been referred to.
I must say to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that there is a contradiction in his position. If one takes the view that there should be no interference in the normal course of events with an embryo, one cannot have option 1. Option 1 would legalise procedures that are aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, if there had not been research in the past, it would not be possible today for thousands of couples to have the benefit of it. Option 1 is ridiculous, because it legitimises past research but outlaws current research. One cannot have one's cake and eat it.
Other arguments have been put forward by opponents to research that are less moralistic, and I think that they have less validity. One argument is that we should not have research because we cannot guarantee that there would be


any beneficial results. That is a ridiculous argument. Would those opponents hold the same view on research into AIDS, cancer, arthritis or any of the other terrible diseases that affect our society and for which there is no known cure at the moment?
Another argument advanced by those who fundamentally oppose research is that it would be better to have research into animals, and that the results can be just as good. That cannot be argued consistently. It is accepted medical opinion that there is a significant difference between species, and that sensible results cannot be obtained on how human cells might react when compared with those of animals.
I do not concede that the fundamentalists have all the moral arguments on their side. I would be the first to defend their right to a philosophical belief, and I am sure that the House would also want to defend that belief, but they must judge the value of their ideology against the potential value that can accrue to society from research. They must judge whether their straitjacketed ideological thinking should outweigh the potential to relieve the problem of infertility, which affects more than one in 10 couples of child-bearing age in this country. They should remember the anguish, loneliness and insecurity, the sense of inadequacy and the mental pain of childlessness. I know a little about that, because I was married for 12 years before we had a child.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point mentioned humanity. The human test of opinion on ideological purity is whether the right hon. Gentleman could square it with the anguish, soul-searching and sense of inadequacy of hundreds of thousands of couples not only in this country but worldwide.
Currently, IVF has only a 15 per cent. success rate. If opponents want to test their morality they should do so on the people who have suffered and on the small percentage who have been lucky enough to have the chance of treatment.
I am not making a party political point, but the chances of receiving that treatment depend on the part of the country in which one lives. The facilities in this country are completely inadequate. Even where that treatment is available, the success rate is only 15 per cent. Some people find it necessary to spend any additional resources on private facilities. I know of people who have had to sell their houses and cars, and sometimes change their job, just to be able to have the chance of having a child.
I challenge opponents outside and inside the House to spend time with those people who have suffered, to live their experience and then say that their moral position stands the test. Surely we have enough resources in one of the wealthiest countries of the world to make that provision. Surely we can make provision for all those who suffer and so badly need the treatment.
Those who oppose this must judge their ideological position against the case for embryo research to prevent genetic disease. I do not want to refer to that aspect in great detail, because the case was made clearly and with great compassion by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. I am sure that others will further the arguments on that point later. It would be a scandal and a condemnation of the lack of liberalism in this country if we prevented research when scientists were telling society that they were almost ready to develop treatment for people with single-gene defects to overcome the problems of cystic fibrosis and other diseases.
Having accepted the case for research in future, is there a case for regulation? On balance, I believe that there is. A body is required to review developments, to encourage the best practice and to consider the need for resources. This is a party political point. It galls me a little that we can apparently trust the City of London to self-regulate, but we cannot trust medical scientists to regulate their own affairs.
Having said that, I must concede certain aspects. I would certainly support the establishment of a licensing authority, although we must be clear in establishing the rules for it that we are not imposing the scientific priorities on medical researchers. It is Parliament's job to impose the financial rules, but scientists must use their intelligence, initiative and adaptability to investigate areas that they believe might be important.

Mr. Frank Field: Surely we need to go further than that. We cannot say that we can completely trust the scientific community. I know that this is an extreme example, but surely no one would trust the scientific community in Nazi Germany.

Mr. Henderson: I accept my hon. Friend's point. Society must have some control over the actions of scientists.
One of the reasons why I am hesitant about the efficacy of a statutory body is that I am not sure that it would exercise proper control. I would rather see a legal requirement laid down by Parliament that scientists should notify Parliament about the purpose of research work. That would be the proper control and a way of ensuring that there was no abuse by the scientific community.
I agree with those who argue that at the moment the 14-day limit is acceptable. We know from the literature that an embryo has not been kept alive so far for more than eight or nine days. However, we must look to the future. Researchers such as R. E. Edwards of the physiological college at Cambridge have said that research into hereditary diseases cannot prove wholly useful and diseases cannot be detected until the 14th day. However, if scientists believed that it was possible to detect a disease on the 15th or 16th day, what view would Parliament take? We might have to face that question in the very near future. I would say that scientists must have the right to go beyond the 14-day limit, but I concede that there must be some regulation.
Miscarriages are a major problem which affects many women many times in their lives. Again, scientific evidence shows that examination into miscarriages cannot be conducted adequately this side of the 14-day limit. Scientists may say that the limit must be extended to 15 or 16 days and we may have to face that problem soon.
There are many reasons for supporting the need for research. The Medical Research Council, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Warnock committee and many others have supported legitimising research on the embryo. Public opinion is also in favour. A Marplan poll in 1985 showed that 63 per cent. were in favour of research. However, I believe that a more telling poll was conducted by the Medical Research Council. It questioned 1,000 women attending a family planning clinic; 78 per cent. of them thought that research should be permitted on pre-embryos in an effort to prevent genetic disease and that women should be free to donate eggs for that purpose.
All those authorities are good reasons for supporting research. However, I still believe that the best reasons for supporting research are to give life to babies who would otherwise not be born; to give a better life to babies who would otherwise have been physically and mentally handicapped; to give hope to and alleviate the pain and misery of the millions of childless couples; to assure the many women who suffer from miscarriages; and, finally and importantly, to give the extraordinary talent and diligence of our scientists and medical researchers the chance to help ordinary people.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He asked whether we could trust our scientists. I would ask "Can we trust this House and the bureaucracy?"
I have read the Warnock report from cover to cover. When I looked at those people who had drawn up the report, I discovered that there was not a clergyman among them, even though this is a moral issue. Indeed, I read all the speeches in another place on 15 January and I found that only one clergyman spoke, the Archbishop of York.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that perhaps morality is too important to be left to the clergy?

Sir Trevor Skeet: That is a very fair observation, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his contribution later.
I want to consider where this whole matter will lead us. The prohibited areas are probably the most interesting. Ectogenesis involves maintaining the embryo in vitro for progressively longer periods. Why have a limit of 14 days? Why should it not be extended to 20, 30 or 40 days? The ultimate goal may be to produce a child entirely in vitro or to produce genetically identical individuals by cloning. In other words, the goal may be to mimic the natural process leading to selective breeding or the creation of human beings with predetermined characteristics. Those of us of my generation will recognise exactly what Hitler did and we remember his domination and his concept of the master race. One can see that coming, not in a lifetime but in two lifetimes. All those matters are hypothetical, but they may come about. As we are aware, we slide from one piece of legislation to another piece of primary legislation and so on.
I want to consider sex selection next. That is of benefit where it is learned that either of the couple is a carrier of a sex-linked hereditary disease, for example, haemophilia, or Duchenne muscular dystrophy. However, it may be detrimental if it is allowed to affect the ratio of males and females in society. It is of vital interest to Indians in my constituency who welcome the birth of sons, but it is disturbing for the role of women in our society.
I now want to consider trans-species investigations. We are all aware that in agriculture they have combined a sheep and a goat and a rather remarkable beast was formed. It would not take a great leap of imagination to imagine what might happen. Each cell has its DNA. It is possible through genetic engineering and manipulation of cells to remove or to splice in a link and that might have catastrophic consequences.
Lady Warnock puts her case this way: "We can stop our descent down the slippery slope at any point we wish, and the way to stop ourselves descending to unknown horrors is by legislation." But in many countries in the world there have been absolute monarchies or dictatorships, and we know what they have done with legislation in the course of time.
The White Paper, Cm. 259, at paragraph 27, says that we must have a system of mandatory licensing. That system, of course, would create a criminal offence. But I must ask the Minister how one can ever enforce a conviction to fortify the prohibition. There will be a problem of evidence. Most of the activities in breach of the law could be compiled clandestinely. Therefore, while one might get the respect of those who have respect for the law, those who thirst for knowledge, regardless of restraints, will work unceasingly for what they term their own aspirations.
We were advised by Lord Skelmersdale, the Leader of the Upper House on 15 January 1988, at column 1505, that the 14-day limit after fertilisation could be extended through primary legislation. Of course it could. I mentioned a moment ago that any length of time might be allowed. Once we get on that slope, the time can be extended further. On the other hand, a list of prohibitions that I have been talking about could be detailed. Paragraph 36 of the White Paper says:
legislation should clearly prohibit all such activities, but with a power for Parliament itself, by affirmative resolution, to make exceptions to these prohibitions if new developments make that appropriate.
Everybody in the Chamber will know how often we have debated affirmative resolutions in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. This is a process of change by stealth. After a short debate such resolutions are sanctioned by the House. The ratchet turns only one way.
AID has grown in its operation without any official encouragement. Abuse of the Abortion Act 1967 has proceeded apace, regardless of the law. Euthanasia is practised to some extent throughout the United Kingdom.
I was very impressed by the minority report of Carrilene, Marshall and Walker. Their words impressed me:
because embryos have the potential to become human persons neither the relief of infertility, nor the advancement of knowledge justifies their deliberate destruction.
The Select Committee of the Australian Senate has said that genetically new human life, organised as a distinct entity, is oriented towards future development. I will not quote Professor Thomas Torrance, nor Professor Lejeune, whose words were referred to by my right hon. Friend. He was denigrated by Professor Bobrow in a letter to The Times of 19 March 1985. I have looked at that letter. He said, finally, that research on very early post-fertilisation stages will be of medical value. He put it no higher and no lower than that. Later, he argued that, due to the parlous state of NHS finances, he doubted whether resources would be available to fund such research.
This is a solemn occasion. The dignity of man must remain inviolate. His status is degraded as soon as the legislature permits us to interfere, to man's detriment, with any part of his being, whether in the time of growth or synthesis. Infertility is a serious deprivation, but not fatal. It can cause no greater anguish than the lot of a very plain girl who fails to marry. It is ironic that the world may sympathise with infertility, but shows little interest in the plight of the latter. In abortion, as in experiments on


human embryos, allegedly for his benefit, scant regard is paid to the fate of man, who may already have begun his pilgrimage course towards birth.
I shall put a few points now to the Minister. I am naturally concerned, because I am perplexed in my own mind, that there are benefits here, of course, which we have noted, but where does this legislation take us? Will we be able to find out the course that is absolutely important to us?
The Medical Research Council has indicated that it is not possible to extrapolate the research results from experiments on animals into man. I accept that. It further claims that certain genetic abnormalities occur only in humans, as in cancers of the outer placenta and in cystic fibrosis.
I received a letter recently from the department of biochemistry and molecular genetics, St. Mary's hospital, which makes an important point. It says:
Advances toward any of these objectives, particularly the latter two"—
and it indicates them—
would require a very small number of early embryo experiments carefully regulated and only using material which would otherwise be discarded.
It continues:
Animal experiments cannot suffice, since there is no animal model for cystic fibrosis.
Will the Minister give the House a complete list, when she winds up or perhaps at a later date if she cannot do so now, of the diseases that are likely to affect infertile people, apart from those such as cancers of the placenta and cystic fibrosis, which we are advised can be studied only in human pre-embryos? Will she tell the House whether the understanding of certain diseases can be enhanced, first, by the study of animals, and, secondly, by the study of adult patients, and, thirdly, by study of the sperm and ovum rather than the embryo? Fourthly is there any other method such as micro-surgery of the fallopian tubes that might be used? I have the following diseases in mind: Down's syndrome, or mongolism, Tay Sachs, muscular dystrophy in various forms, Huntington's chorea, Lesch Nyhan syndrome, Friedrich's ataxia, and brittle bone disease. These are some of the important diseases to research, and there are many more as well. If we could get to the true facts, research into human embryos could he limited to a very narrow field. This list could be included in the Bill, and added to if necessary by regulations.
Techniques cannot be disinvented. The work that has been achieved in the United Kingdom cannot be undone, and nobody would wish that to happen. The Medical Research Council has laboratories at Carshalton and there are others at Edinburgh, and at the Cromwell hospital in London. I understand that there are 15 research centres in the United Kingdom. There have been great achievements throughout British medicine and I pay tribute to the work that has been done. Having said all that, surely we in the House can see, down the labyrinth of years, the dangers to which we are exposed, and the dangers to which we are exposing the nation. While acknowledging the remarkable work that we have done, can we remove some of the hard edges beyond infertility? I ask the Minister to consider such questions carefully. I will be satisfied with the answers.
If I am the son of a mother who received AID, I am entitled to my name and I am entitled to know who my father is. The Minister said that a child would not be

entitled to the name of his lather and that therefore the child would have no link with his father. The child might have a passport but would have no link with identity. [Interruption.] The Minister said in his opening remarks that the child produced by AID would not be given the name of his father. The White Paper proposes that the name will not be disclosed. However, the Minister said that this might change. It might be wise to follow the policy in Sweden where the name is revealed. The child is entitled at the ages of 16 to 13 to know who his father was, what he was, what he did and everything about him in the same way as is obvious to the average individual.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of allowing children born by artificial insemination by donor to find out the name of the father is being reconsidered because the supply of sperm for donation has begun to dry up?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I would not have thought that there was any shortage of that material. I will not pursue the point. There are students everywhere; there are students at universities. I am talking about the basic right of the child; I am not putting any emphasis on the parent. The child has a right to know his identity. He has the right to know who his parents were. He has the right to know whether there was any moral problem in his line of descent.
I could say more but it would be unfair to other hon. Members who want to speak. I am not against AID provided it does not lead to destruction. Once a human is conceived, it is on the slow course which will lead it to birth. It is open to science to prevent it, but in that case we are all culpable for the result which follows.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The White Paper is only a framework, but its drafting can be commended. Although the Warnock report was a study into which a great deal of work and research went, not all of us agreed with all its findings. Therefore, I am pleased that the White Paper is a significant improvement on the original report. The wide consultations with many organisations provided significant ground work for further consultation. I believe that almost 200 detailed responses were received.
The great support for the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill had a significant effect upon opinion. I trust that the statutory licensing authority will keep all the representations in mind when it makes decisions. The body will be completely independent in its decisions. I am glad that half of its members will be lay persons. I hope that there will be one member from the nursing profession and perhaps one from the Royal College of Midwives. The Minister should consider the composition carefully.
Research is the key word in the White Paper. One's views of research are personal. The recommendations which permit research and those which prohibit research will allow embryo experimentation to take place. Research is essential, but opinion on whether embryonic research is necessary is divided.
Professor Martin Bowbrow, professor of paediatric research at Guy's hospital medical school, believes that human research of this type is essential in the search for a cure for Down's syndrome and other chromosonal defects, including muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and haemophilia, because cures are unlikely to be found purely through animal research. This is disputed forcibly.
One of the world's leading geneticists, Professor Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the cause of Down's syndrome, and Mr. Rex Brinkworth, the founder of the Down's Children's Association, have both categorically denied that the use of human embryos is necessary for research into genetic disorders. They maintain that there is no genetic information which could not be provided by a study of adult patients. Researchers who do not use the human embryo have achieved major breakthroughs in understanding and tackling cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Huntington's disease, using the techniques of molecular biology. There has been great progress in the treatment of genetic blood disease through bone marrow transplants and of spina bifida through vitamin supplementation for pregnant mothers.
The word "pre-embryo" is bandied about, but I maintain that there is no such being. Let us just talk about the embryo. Is the embryo a child? This is perhaps the most difficult question of all and one on which any decision will probably be based. The Warnock committee wants a ban on research after 14 days because that coincides with the feature known as the primitive streak, which is described in the report as
the heaping-up of cells at one end of the embryonic disc on the fourteenth or fifteenth day after fertilisation. Two primitive streaks may form in a single embryonic disc. This is the latest stage at which identical twins can occur. The primitive streak is the first of several identifiable features which develop in and from the embryonic disc".
Those who say that it is not a child point out that the early embryo is a mass of cells, nearly all of which are destined during normal development to form part of the afterbirth. It is morally defensible to give absolute legal protection to this early embryo. From the moment of conception the embryo is a genetically unique, living, individual human being. At conception everything about the new human is established—the colour of hair and eyes, the sex, the eventual height and the complete genetic make-up of the individual with all his or her gifts and talents. At conception the human embryo simply has to grow and develop, as at any other stage of life.
I will quote what the Royal College of Nursing has said about experimentation on human embryos:
We have little to add to the debate surrounding this issue. Our own view, and the view of the college, is that experimentation on human embryos is unacceptable save for therapeutic purposes which directly benefit the embryo. As practitioners whose daily work is taken up with close personal contact with prospective parents and real live children, we cannot but view embryos as something special.
The White Paper has another flaw in that there appears to be a lack of training initiative. Persons working in gynaecology, family planning and genetic counselling may be involved in limited assessment and follow-up work. One problem that seems to be identified is the lack of training for those undertaking this counselling of parents and the resultant supportive role. The Royal College of Nursing has said that as long as counselling is seen as a secondary objective it believes that the client is receiving an inferior service. It would therefore welcome comments on the need for properly organised counselling services for couples receiving infertility services, with adequate preparation of staff and regulation of the service in terms of resourcing and recording of information.
In closing, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, I quote what my hon. Friend the Member

for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in the debate on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. He echoed my sentiments when he said:
We should get away from and dispense with the charges and counter-charges about motive and who has what reason for taking which point of view.
It is not part of my case in favour of the Bill to question the motives of the scientists and doctors who carry out work in the disciplines which may be in some way restricted by the Bill, some of whom approve of the Bill and others of whom are opposed to it. Their motive is the advancement of humanity and the advancement of knowledge, and they pursue those objectives with a determination and single-mindedness which from time to time inevitably brings them up against the test of what the law should tolerate and where the boundaries should be drawn. But I do not question or challenge the motives of their work, for which I have the highest regard.
It does not follow from saying that everything which anyone working in any of these fields might feel should be done should be sanctioned. Our experience over the years is that there will always come a point where the researcher wants to do something which society thinks should not be done, and the argument is about where those boundary lines should fall."—[Official Report, 15 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 693.]
The human embryo is my boundary line, and I will not cross it, although I respect the views of others in this Chamber. I am interested to hear the information that is coming out in the debate tonight.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sure that all hon. Members will have been deeply moved by the speeches of those hon. Members who have had personal experience of the tragedies of infertility and genetic handicap. It is worth remembering that it is estimated that each one of us carries on average six defective genes in our make-up, and it is purely a matter of chance whether our partner has the same genes so that we carry the risk of passing on this handicap in the form of a child who is born with a dreadful disorder.
The most common of these handicaps is cystic fibrosis and one in 20 of the population carries this gene. I take the strongest exception to the remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that cystic fibrosis research does not require the use of human embryos. I have had a letter today from Professor Williamson of St. Mary's hospital, who is leading the team in this country which is doing the most work in this respect, and he confirms that every member of his team accepts that human embryo research is necessary for that work.
I should like to start by congratulating the Government on bringing forward this challenging White Paper with a view to legislation on these issues, it is hoped, later this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has said, there is no doubt that we in this country are leading the world in this science. As we heard from the Minister, it is now 10 years since the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first test-tube baby. Since then, well over 1,000 IVF babies—I believe nearly 2,000 now —have been born in this country, and worldwide the total is now over 4,000. So approximately one third of all the IVF babies in the world have been born in this country.
I think it is worth asking why this country is in the lead in this pioneering work. I believe that it is because we not only have outstanding medical skills but also the rarest of all virtues—British common sense—so that we can come to terms with the ethical, moral and social implications of these new developments.
The report of Baroness Warnock's committee has been admired by people all over the world who look to this country to establish a legal framework in which our doctors and scientists can continue to do this work while society as a whole can be assured of both the continuing benefits of this work and the establishment of strict controls to regulate future research.
The Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are to be congratulated on setting up the Voluntary Licensing Authority in 1985, which has an excellent lay chairman in Dame Mary Donaldson and a committee with a balance of lay and medical members. There is no such body in any other country, and it sets the basis for establishing a statutory licensing authority, as recommended by Baroness Warnock in her report.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has commended the work of the Voluntary Licensing Authority and I would remind Members of her reply to me on 24 April 1986, when she said:
I noted that the authority's first report had been published, and I hope that it will be widely studied, because the organisation's work is excellent."—[Official Report, 24 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 422.]
One can hardly approve of the work of the Voluntary Licensing Authority if one does not approve of the research that it carries out.
However, some sections of the public have expressed their reservations about these new developments, with massive petitions and letters to Members of the House. Some of our religious leaders have found it difficult to come to terms with these new dilemmas. The Church of England Synod voted narrowly in favour of continuing research, but the Catholic Church, with some notable dissenters, has been opposed. I was much heartened by the speeches in the other House, where I think there was a balance of 17 speakers in favour of research against four
who did not want it, and particularly by the speech of the Archbishop of York, which has already been referred to. He gave a lead to those who look for the religious argument in favour of research.
The Catholic Father John Mahoney, first president of the Catholic Theological Association, has put the divided views of the Catholic Church excellently in his book "Bioethics and Belief".
The House has recently had a passionate debate on abortion, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) pointed out to us all the dilemma of late abortions. IVF research holds out the promise of fewer abortions through the possible new technique of pre-implantation diagnosis for couples who are at risk of carrying genetic disorders, as well as of improved contraception, which in itself would reduce the number of abortions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to Professor Lejeune. I would remind him that 95 per cent. of the experts in this area in this country would endorse the statement made by Professor Bobrow of Guy's hospital:
Sadly, Professor Lejeune has, over recent years, become an isolated figure in the world of human genetics.
Professor Bobrow said that the letter which he wrote to The Times was signed by eight senior colleagues, and that the editor of The Times limited the signatories to that number, as otherwise the massive preponderance of his profession would have signed the letter.
One of the most moving experiences of my life was a meeting held here last month in the Grand Committee Room for parents of handicapped children, when mother after mother expressed her fear of giving birth to another child carrying dreadful inherited disorders. At present the only option, if any, is late termination of affected foetuses, with all the attendant stress. Who here would deny them this new pre-implantation diagnosis possibility and hence the opportunity of carrying a healthy child without the fear of a late abortion?
The former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, spoke about the dignity of man, but where is this dignity for the many hundreds of severely handicapped children in institutions and psychiatric wards whose parents cannot cope? Must we deny research that could reduce the incidence of severe congenital handicap?
I speak also for that other silent minority, the one in 10 couples who have difficulty in becoming parents. Those of us fortunate enough to have children should not be so selfish as to deny to others, usually too embarrassed and unhappy to speak out for themselves, the right to found a family. Is this not one of the fundamental rights in the European convention? It certainly is in the United Nations body of rights declarations in 1968, article 16 of which states:
Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children.
If people suffering from infertility have a right to IVF treatment, how can we deny them the benefits of research to improve this technique, for, however beneficial, it is still in an early stage of development?
The Voluntary Licensing Authority has given me these figures for the United Kingdom in 1985 — the latest available figures, because gestation takes nine months. The number of patients treated in 1985 was 3,717. The number of treatment cycles in 1985 was 4,308—because some patients had more than one treatment. The number of clinical pregnancies arising from those treatments was 481, and the number of live births was 364. That is a success rate of only 8–5 per cent. for each treatment cycle. Surely that is evidence of the need to improve the efficiency of this technique.
To outlaw that research would not stop it—it would drive it abroad. It would be no solution to the ethical problems posed, because surely we in Britain would want to benefit from any advances. It is far better to give the Voluntary Licensing Authority legal backing and sanctioning power so that the public know that research is properly conducted, monitored and controlled.
The VLA has shown that limits can be agreed and adhered to without the danger of the "slippery slope" that concerns many people. I would remind hon. Members that no embryo has been kept alive beyond nine days of development, and that the fourteenth day indicates a point at which the embryo cannot exist without attachment to the mother's womb. Before the fourteenth day, many contraceptives, such as the IUD coil, prevent the embryo from implanting and so it is lost. Are we questioning the morality of those commonly-used methods?
The pre-14-day embryo has the potential to divide and form twins, and also to join together again to form only a single individual. That phenomenon shows the absurdity of trying to give the status of a human individual to a pre-14-day embryo.
Perhaps later this year hon. Members will have the novel opportunity to choose, on a free vote, between two


clauses, one forbidding research and one allowing research, subject to the regulations of the statutory licensing authority. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the benefits of research within strict guidelines, and decide to vote in favour of the Government's proposal for a statutory licensing authority, and allow that authority the freedom to decide the criteria for embryo research within the balance of overriding limits laid down by Parliament.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The main suggestions in the White Paper seem eminently sensible and clearly command a broad level of support. In my opinion, an independent statutory licensing authority is the right body to make those sensitive decisions. It is not an area for direct Government intervention, but more than professional self-regulation is needed.
We have not discussed the controls over surrogacy that are referred to in the White Paper, but again the balance is right. It proposes the sensible and compassionate withdrawal of any facility for any party to take another to law over money that may have changed hands. However, it pays due regard to any child who may be born in that way. The White Paper contains no Government sanction. The suggested regulations about the storage of gametes and embryos again hold the right balance.
I shall concentrate my remarks on research on embryos. That clearly is the most heated point of the debate. I speak with some humility, having listened to the speeches of those hon. Members who spoke from personal experience. I was extremely moved and convinced by what they said. In many ways, they made their case completely.
What are the reasons for such research? It is not a question of scientists getting carried away by their ability to research cloning and the fanciful subjects which seem to have stolen the headlines in the debate, but which are irrelevant to what happens in clinics that do such invaluable work to solve the problems of infertility.
We have heard today that one in 10 couples face the problem of infertility. Having gone for treatment, fewer than one in 10 couples go home with babies in their arms. The problem is huge. It is a problem which those of us who are lucky enough to have children will never experience, but we can imagine the inadequacy and emptiness of life when children are very much wanted and are not forthcoming. Who are we to deny those people something that comes so easily to so many of us?
Without a certain amount of research, even those one in 10 mothers would not be taking home their babies. There would be no babies as a result of in-vitro fertilisation if there had been no research. It is impossible to separate the two. Without further pre-embryo research, the success rate in helping infertile couples can be increased only by a greater number of re-implantations, thereby risking multiple pregnancies, miscarriages, premature delivery and infant mortality.
Pre-embryo replacement must not be done on a random basis, but only where there is a clear family history of genetic disease. The opportunities that modern science provides to detect those pre-embryos which carry disorders must and should be screened out. Pre-embryo research is the crux of the matter. It helps infertile couples and helps to eliminate genetic disorders.
Yesterday, I went to a fertility clinic to look at a pre-embryo. There has been so much talk about experimentation on embryos following the debate on abortion that there is a public misconception that we are discussing experimentation on microscopic babies. It may sound silly to say it in the House, where hon. Members are so well informed, but in the country there is such an illusion.
We are talking about a small cluster of cells no bigger than a pinhead, which cannot be seen by the naked eye. For up to 14 days following fertilisation, pre-embryos exist with no nervous system and no recognisable foetal characteristics. Indeed, 90 per cent. of the cells formed in that way go on to form the placenta and not the embryo itself.
After fertilisation under normal circumstances, most of those pre-embryos fail to attach themselves to the wall of the uterus and are lost as part of the next menstrual cycle. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has already said that forms of contraception such as the coil prevent the pre-embryo from attaching to the side of the uterus and developing into embryos.
There has been much discussion about the nature of life and when life starts. We must be realistic about it. We must recognise that it does not start with an instantaneous, star-studded explosion. Fertilisation is a continuous process taking up to 24 hours and ends when the fertilised egg begins to divide.
If we allow our scientists and medical advisers to continue with careful and strictly controlled research, it will be possible to screen out genetic disorders, not only to stop one child carrying those disorders but eventually to screen out those disorders altogether from our population. It can be done.
In most instances, the chromosomes — the genetic make-up of a potential future embryo—are identifiable in that pre-embryo cell. It is simply a matter of removing one cell from an embryo, freezing the embryo, which may be only four or eight cells—they do not increase one at a time, they double — removing one cell and checking for genetic disorders. If that disorder is present, the pre-embryo will be allowed to perish naturally. If it is healthy, it can be implanted in the mother's uterus. We have heard today, only too convincingly, about the tragedy that can befall not only the children concerned, but their families, when such genetic disorders are allowed to continue while we have the means to prevent them.
Pre-embryo research will also help to establish the causes of infertility, and to tackle the problems of contraception. I have lived through an era in which we thought that we had the contraception problem cracked. In the sixties, the pill appeared. Everyone thought that was fine, and we could forget about the problem. As time has gone on, however, we have heard about risk after risk attached to different forms of contraception. Clearly we do not have the answer. There is a great deal of work to be done, and embryo research can add considerably to our knowledge.
Research must, of course, be carefully controlled. No one is advocating a completely free rein for scientists to become involved in work that is not possible, and not likely in the foreseeable future. We must, however, be clear as a Parliament that we cannot endorse some of the more fanciful elements of pre-embryo research. Continuing embryo research must be very strictly controlled. However, in my view, the benefit to mankind far


outweighs any disadvantage. While it has become clear that research of this kind cannot be performed on animals, I emphasise that it is being performed not on microscopic babies, but on human material which is not an inherent human being.
Let me add a specific point to what I have made the main thrust of my argument: the need to allow research to continue. That is my anxiety about children who are the offspring of artificial insemination by donor being allowed to know their natural fathers. We have already heard that, in Sweden, the number of people coming forward to donate sperm for this cause has plummeted as a result of such a measure. Most young men would be very reluctant to indulge in such an exercise in the knowledge that, in 20 or 30 years, someone could knock on their door and say, "Hallo, Dad." That is a frightening prospect. However, more mature men have come forward, who may have had experience of infertility themselves, and may know the problem. Perhaps that is no bad thing, but the number of couples seeking such help has declined. There is evidence that some of them may be going abroad to seek help, where they will avoid the problem of a possible future revelation for the child which may be to the detriment of the whole family.
Most children know their true father only by courtesy of their mother. There is considerable evidence that up to 20 per cent. of children could not be the natural offspring of the person they have been brought up to think of as their father. We are giving those children rights that the rest of the population do not have.
We must allow controlled research. There must be regulations on this vital matter, but we must also recognise that what can be achieved will alleviate human misery substantially. For us to turn our backs on that potential achievement would surely be very wrong.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Less than a fortnight ago, we debated another issue that centred on moral and medical issues. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) presented a Bill that caused much heart-searching on both sides of the House, and I would be very surprised if similar reactions did not occur this evening.
The issues of abortion and in-vitro fertilisation are clearly, to an extent, related. Many of us opposed the Abortion (Amendment) Bill on the basis of our scientific knowledge. I, for one, could not reconcile an 18-week gestation period with the knowledge that, even with today's highly sophisticated medical techniques, no baby born before 24 weeks' gestation had survived.
I very much doubt whether legislation should pre-empt medical advances to the extent that mothers carrying undetected abnormal foetuses should be denied abortions. The House may find it significant that the three practising medical men elected to the House last year—the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and myself—all voted against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. I trust that those hon. Members who voted for a period of 18 weeks on the understanding that it would subsequently be amended to 24 weeks — a date that I would endorse—will not be disillusioned.
If we believe, as do so many Roman Catholics and, indeed, Christians of all denominations, that life begins at conception, the whole principle of IVF is presumably

unacceptable. I understand the pure logic of their argument, and I admire the consistency of deeply held views. However, from my previous remarks, the House will understand that I cannot, as a physician, accept them. I understand that the new technique of gamete intra-fallopian transfer—referred to by the acronym GIFT— may overcome theological arguments, in that ova and sperm are introduced into the fallopian tubes, where fertilisation usually takes place, as opposed to the uterus, separated by a pocket of air.
For me, the overriding issue in both the Abortion (Amendment) Bill and the subject of tonight's debate—-other than the mother's well-being—is her opportunity to decide whether to bear children with varying degrees of handicap, within the context of the whole family. Surely it cannot but lead to fewer abortions if abnormalities can be detected not in the 18th, 24th or 28th week, but in the first 14 days. At this stage, the term "pre-embryo" is utterly appropriate — before cell differentiation has occurred, and before any neurological tissue has been laid down. We should never forget that the cells in the pre-embryo, roughly the size of the point of a pin, can develop either into the embryo itself or into the placenta.
Apart from the avoidance of congenital defects such as Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's chorea and cystic fibrosis— I shall spare the House a litany of diagnoses—which are just a few of about 50 serious genetic abnormalities which affect 15,000 babies annually, I cannot see that the techniques of IVF should be denied in efforts to produce normal children for previously infertile couples. Much happiness has been brought to childless marriages, and the pleasure of knowing that their own genes have produced the baby enhances the parents' joy. That does not apply to the practice of artificial insemination by donor, about which I have many reservations. How much more desirable is pre-embryo diagnosis, as opposed to late abortions, which I suspect no hon. Member views without the deepest concern.
In-vitro fertilisation is a technique developed in Great Britain after 20 or more years of research. Parallel research in the United States was held back owing to antagonistic state legislation, which may be a lesson in itself. In contrast, Australia has taken the lead unencumbered by overbearing legislation and assisted by ample funds.
The success rate of implantation in Britain 10 years ago was about 1·5 per cent. It has now risen to around 25 per cent. However, the "take-home baby rate", which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree is an inelegant phrase, is only 8 to 9 per cent.—in other words, less than one in 10 succeed. That is a disappointing figure. A plateau has now been reached, but I am led to believe by my medical colleagues that a major breakthrough is likely in the next five to 10 years if two conditions are satisfied —first, that legislation does not stand in the way, and, secondly, that adequate funds are available.
This week I visited an IVF unit in London—I was glad to see the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) following in my footsteps — which has the unique distinction of being a joint project between the National Health Service—at Barts—and the private sector. Some hon. Members know of my keenness to encourage such co-operation and this is an excellent example. Of the other 36 units, one third are in the NHS, one third in the private sector and one third are attached to academic institutions.
The Voluntary Licensing Authority, set up on the initiative of the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has done admirable work, under the chairmanship of Dame Mary Donaldson, in regulating the work done in this area and has worked closely with local ethical committees. It has licensed 25 units and another 12 are under assessment.
It is no reflection on the VLA that I now support the setting up of a statutory licensing authority with advisory and executive powers, in cases of prima facie unethical practices. It should consist of professional and lay members, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks.
I would go further than the Warnock report in proposing the inclusion of a religious leader of any faith. That representative need not necessarily be ordained. For example, a doctor who has been a lay preacher might be an admirable choice. Indeed, such a person might find more favour in the House than the sociologist suggested by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).
I fully support the introduction of a new criminal offence, backed up by severe penalties, for the unauthorised use of embryos, trans-species fertilisation and genetic manipulation. The sale of embryos should in no circumstances be tolerated.
Above all, I urge the House to keep the whole issue in proportion, untainted by exaggerated and emotive propaganda. Assisted reproduction, necessarily dependent on successful and integrated research, is already of vast benefit to those 10 per cent. of couples who are infertile. We want to see more than the 2,000 healthy babies already born in this country by that means.
In conclusion, assisted reproduction is an important, worthy and humane venture and our responsible medical profession would not hazard the technique's great potential by abusing ethical standards in its country of origin. The case is compelling and I trust that the House will not stand in the way of further properly supervised research.

Mr. William Cash: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) because, in their own respective ways, they summarised clearly the position that I generally oppose.
We have had what on any account has been a good-tempered and well-balanced debate, and an enormous amount of time has been given to White Papers, to the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill which was introduced by Mr. Enoch Powell — I was a member of the Committee which considered it—and to discussions in the media over the past four years or so.
I gave evidence indirectly to the Warnock committee, and I have been involved with this subject for about six years now. I have done my best to grapple with the difficult problems that it represents, but I find the issue extremely difficult. I have a clear idea of what I think should be done, but at the same time I have to acknowledge—in the hope that I am a compassionate person and also aware of the grave concern of those people who are infertile or who suffer from potential genetic defects — that there is a serious problem that we must address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) asked whether we should sacrifice this research for the sake of future generations. The issue that has concerned me in particular has been whether we might be sacrificing future generations for the purposes of research. I say that seriously and gravely, because major questions relating to potential political control lie at the root of this important subject.
Some years ago, in the debate on the Warnock report, I said that I thought that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. I also said that if a private Member's Bill were to be introduced, there was a strong case for such a Bill being referred to a Special Standing Committee. I add as a rider to that that we could ad hoc change our Standing Orders to enable the usual three days allowed for a Special Standing Committee to be extended to, say, 10 days.
I had many discussions with Senator Brian Harradine of the Australian Parliament. As a result of his efforts, a Select Committee was set up in Australia. I kept in touch with him throughout the whole of its proceedings, and I have the volumes of evidence that were given to it which anybody could fairly say represents an enormous amount of work. If we were to have a Special Standing Committee to consider the crucial questions which arise from the White Paper, its members would have the opportunity to look at the evidence that had already been provided in Australia, sieve it, and come up with an interesting and important contribution. That Committee could cross-examine the experts concerned who so far have not been subjected to sceptical, or even cynical, cross-examination, which it is our job to provide.
I have heard much talk from hon. Members who take an opposite view to me about the relative unimportance of the pre-embryo. The Australian Select Committee considered voluminous evidence, carefully and seriously, in a balanced way and came to a number of important conclusions. After the most thorough inquiry into the status of the human embryo undertaken by any Government body anywhere, the Committee found:

"1. that the human embryo from conception is 'a genetically new human life organised as a distinct entity oriented towards further development' ….
2. that the embryo's orientation to 'further development as a biologically individuated member of the human species' commands such respect as to preclude destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on it.
3. That any 'marker' or distinction between embryos, such as `pre-embryo', 'pre-embryonic disc', 'pre-conscious' or 'spare' which purports to distinguish between embryos which are entitled to such respect and ones which are not is arbitrary, ethically unsound and impractical … and
4. that 'prudence' dictates that, until"—

I would say "unless"—
the contrary is demonstrated 'beyond reasonable doubt … the embryo should be regarded as if it were a human subject for the purposes of biomedical ethics ….".
There is much more in that report.
The importance of this subject was borne out by my visit to the United Nations some years ago with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. I am glad to see that she is in her place, as she may recall the discussions that took place in the Population Control Committee room. I raised the question of eugenics, which lies at the centre of gravity of the problem. I had been referred to a book called "Human Fertility — Health and Food." I remember that book vividly. In effect, it said, "There are a lot of nuts running


round the world. There is absolutely nothing for anyone to worry about. The research will be undertaken anyway and we will package them up and dispatch them." The evidence that I have accumulated since then proves beyond reasonable doubt that we need to consider positive eugenics very seriously. I would recommend all hon. Members to read a book by Dr. Glover, a distinguished philosopher and fellow of New college, Oxford. It is called "What sort of people should there be?" It is not a joke book. It describes analytically, calmly and unhysterically genetic supermarkets, positive eugenics and related matters. We know of the works of Mr. Muller writing in America in the 1930s and we have evidence of the way in which the Germans behaved in the pre-war period and during the war. Anyone who does not believe that it is possible for this research to be turned to evil purposes is under a grave illusion.
That brings me to my next question. Would the proposed Bill ban all research, as many have thought? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health will forgive me if I misquote him, but I think that he said that it would ban all research. Writing in The Independent of 14 December, Tom Wilkie said that one of the options to be considered was
whether research should be banned altogether.
If one examines the White Paper and, as it were, translates it into a Bill — I have no doubt that parliamentary counsel will be doing that with the next Session in view — one finds that research is not as prohibited as we had thought, or perhaps hoped. I shall not go into all the technicalities, but paragraph 30, relating to the alternative draft clauses, says:
It will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at
a number of purposes, and there is a similar draft dealing with the question of permitting research.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): The White Paper makes it clear that it will be for the House to decide whether research should be permitted. The present proposal is to offer the House alternative clauses, one which would permit research and one which would not. It would be for the House to decide on a free vote.

Mr. Cash: Of course, that question will be implicit in the Second Reading debate and it will be decided then. But when we have got past that point and the scope and long title of the Bill have been conceded on Second Reading, we have to ask: what degree of research will be allowed? My hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me on that point.
I shall now deal with the question of extending the activities—or reducing the prohibition—by regulation. Effectively, that would be done by means of affirmative resolution and the so-called Henry VIII clause. For those hon. Members who do not know what that means, it means that the Act can be amended by subsequent statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. The problem is that if that technique is employed, we are on the slippery slope — the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) in his telling speech and I believe by me in the debate on the Warnock report in 1984. I am bound to ask whether we are entitled to examine the relationship between the

benefits on the one hand — I concede those benefits, because I have compassion for those affected — and grave political dangers on the other.
I shall come to my point on that straight away. I see that another distinguished Minister, the Minister for Local Government, is in the Chamber. When he was at the Department of Trade and Industry, I think I asked him whether we should have international treaties to deal with these matters. It is not just a question of what we do in this House; we may significantly affect what goes on elsewhere, just as the Australians may significantly affect what we do. That is the way that the world goes round these days. We live in a small global village. We could possibly work through the EEC. I believe that these matters would fall within the provisions of the treaty reserving our right to determine matters of public health. If that is so, we should be able to sustain the veto if we had to do so while negotiating in that context, or unilaterally, with other countries.
The implications for the world as a whole are serious enough for us to consider that. I say that because there is now much evidence of the dimensions of the problem. An article in the Spectator of 29 August 1987, referring to the physiology and genetics research station at Roslin just outside Edinburgh, says:
They have plans to try to transfer a copy of a gene taken from a human being — the one responsible for the production of an essential ingredient of blood plasma—into sheep. They are using human tissue.
The author of the article refers to it as being a "scary subject", and says:
The need to spend money has its own momentum and few human beings need a purpose beyond insane curiosity to meddle with nature.
I got 150 signatures for my early-day motion on trans-species fertilisation. The Daily Telegraph subsequently reported the creation of an ape-man hybrid in Florence. These are not scare stories. They are questions of great importance and we need to take them into account in determining how to deliberate on this matter. There are some well-intentioned people who want to produce helpful research for other people, but there are nevertheless significant problems which Parliament needs to contain and control.
I wonder, therefore, whether it would be sensible to impose a 10-year limit on the Bill on the assumption that we are dealing with experimentation and that many of the proposals may be overtaken by events. Those who take the opposite view to mine may well find that the Abortion Act 1967 had a time limit imposed on it. It may have been another Act. It does not matter which one of those seminal pieces of legislation had a time limit imposed on it, which was subsequently erased by resolution of the House, but the important part is that a time limit was imposed. It would be useful to consider that.
It might also be helpful for a Sub-Committee of the Social Services Select Committee to be given the specific task to monitor, within Parliament, the activities of the SLA. I believe that Congress follows that practice. I am concerned about what the word "therapeutic" means. I am speaking almost in shorthand because I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I apologise if I have taken too long.
At the end of the day, we must consider this subject from the point of view of the child—not children. We


have to make our first priority the preservation of life, not its destruction. This subject is too important for us to play games with it.

Mr. John Hannam: This has been a quiet, well-informed debate. Anyone who listened to the moving speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) detailing the tragedies within his family and also listened to the opposing but probing speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will appreciate the careful approach that has been adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister who has tried to find the right path for this delicate subject.
I have consistently supported measures to restrict unlimited abortion and other campaigns for the protection of the unborn child. Therefore, it may be rather surprising that I now wish to speak in support of research on pre-embryos. However, in common with my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I see no contradiction in adopting that position. Obviously, if we can remove the flawed cell at the beginning we shall remove the need for an abortion at a later stage. If, as a result of research, contraception methods are improved we also remove the need for abortion at a later stage.
Hon. Members will be aware that I am deeply involved in working with and for handicapped people. For some 15 years I have been an officer of the all-party disablement group and in common with other hon. Members I am an active member of many organisations such as Action Research for the Crippled Child, the Parkinson's Disease Society, Alzheimer's Disease Society, Mencap and other disability groups. Much of the work of those organisations involves preventive care, that is, helping to find ways of preventing those dreadful, disabling diseases that cause such distress not only to the sufferers, but to the parents and families concerned.
During my 17 years in Parliament much progress—medical and social—has been made for those who are unfortunate enough to be handicapped and disabled. A great deal is now being done to help them live reasonable lives. Nevertheless, I will do everything that I can to prevent such disabilities occurring. I am convinced that the harnessing of medical and scientific progress, under proper supervision, can lead to great advances in preventive care.
Earlier I mentioned Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. With both of those dreadful afflictions, and possibly with multiple sclerosis, we are on the verge of an amazing breakthrough with brain cell transplantation. With that issue we run up against perceived moral and ethical obstacles because the transplant material comes from aborted eight to nine-week-old foetuses. The Government will have to clarify the law on that matter if that great medical breakthrough is to be put into practice in this country as it already is in Sweden and Mexico.
The key issue today is the use of pre-embryos for research into the genetic diseases or abnormalities that can be detected in the first 10 or so days of a fertilised cell's existence. As we know, when a male sperm fertilises the female egg it is one cell. That cell divides quickly into two cells, which in turn divide into four and so on. They are clustered together and at that early stage each new cell

looks just like the other. During the first 14 days after fertilisation the majority of those cells separate to form the placenta. At this time they can be seen only under a powerful microscope. It is at the 14 day stage, when the process of separation is complete, that the remaining cells then form an embryo—in the case of twins two embryos are formed. If all remains well, the embryo may grow into a foetus and become a baby.
The bulk of the research that is under discussion in the White Paper concerns helping people to get pregnant or avoid losing their babies before birth and, of course, IVF. As well as improving infertility treatment, research on pre-embryos could also help to improve contraceptive methods and prevent human genetic defects. Such defects are a common cause of handicap and death of babies. Genetic defects and congenital malformations occur in 2 to 5 per cent. of all live births and are the cause of 40 to 50 per cent. of deaths in childhood. Genetic diseases account for 10 per cent. of all diseases and such diseases are untreatable. Some 12 to 15 per cent. of all paediatric admissions are due to congenital abnormalities. One person in 50 has a major congenital abnormality—that equals 14,000 births a year. One in 100 people have a single gene defect and one in 200 a major chromosomal disorder. It is estimated that 20 per cent. of pre-embryos are abnormal and certain couples are at particular risk. Screening for pre-embryos would help those couples who were known to face a substantial risk of defect. In the foreseeable future it may be possible to detect those pre-embryos that would develop specific disorders such as muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Hunter's syndrome, Hurler's syndrome and Huntington's chorea.
Mencap and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation believe that research on embryos under 14 days could help to reduce the genetic diseases figures and must be supported by Parliament. The advantages of such research are only now becoming apparent because of recent developments in relevant technology. In January at a joint meeting of the all-party disablement group and the all-party children's group, Professor Robert Winston, professor of fertility studies at Hammersmith hospital, pointed out that, within the next few months, it would be possible to establish guidelines for diagnosing certain genetic conditions two days after fertilisation. The first condition with which the model has been successfully developed is the Lesch Nyhan syndrome. Children with that disease are normal at birth, but deteriorate rapidly, becoming mentally handicapped and self-mutilating. Such children do not usually live beyond their teenage years. It is now possible to establish whether an embryo is deficient by looking at a single cell. The two other diseases where major advances are likely are Duchenne muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. The cystic fibrosis gene is carried by one in 20 people and is a particularly serious problem. Many babies with the disease die in infancy.
At present the only way of discovering whether a woman is carrying an abnormal foetus is by amniocentesis. That test cannot be carried out, as we know from recent debates, until the 14th or 16th week of pregnancy.
An embryo up to 14 days after fertilisation is one tenth the size of a dot of newsprint and it has no organs or feelings. During this stage a woman would not normally know that the egg had been fertilised because implementation would not have taken place. In addition, at least 40 per cent. of fertilised eggs are shed before


implementation and widely accepted methods of contraception such as the coil and low-dosage pills work by preventing implementation of the fertilised egg rather than preventing actual fertilisation.
It is easy to imagine the heartache that parents must endure as they consider whether to terminate a pregnancy or whether they will be able to cope with a severely mentally or physically handicapped child. All that could be saved if the presence of an abnormal gene or chromosomal defect could be detected in a pre-embryo. It would then be possible to ensure that only normal pre-embryos were transferred back to those women whose families carry serious genetic diseases.
The alternative to that handicap prevention development is our present system of identifying an abnormality at the 14th to 20th week of pregnancy. The parents are then faced with the terrible choice of either having an abortion or the birth of a severely handicapped child. Surely if such terrible abnormalities could be identified and the defective cell replaced by the mother's normal, healthy cell that must be right. Banning pre-embryo research will halt essential work being carried out to find ways of preventing chromosomal abnormalities and hereditary genetic illnesses that affect up to 14,000 children in Britain every year.
The claim that human embryonic material is not needed for dealing with genetic diseases is refuted by nearly all the experts involved with medical science. The latest claim that recent advances in understanding cystic fibrosis, which is the most common severe genetic disease affecting children, had come about without the use of embryos is vehemently denied by one of the leaders in the field, Professor Williamson of the department of biochemistry and molecular genetics at St. Mary's, whose research group has been one of the major teams studying that disease. He points out that 2 million people in Britain carry the lethal genetic defect that causes the disease. He says that tremendous progress is being made towards finding a longterm solution:
Advance towards any of those objectives …would require a very small number of early embryo experiments, carefully regulated and only using material which otherwise would be discarded. Animal experiments cannot suffice since there is no animal model for cystic fibrosis.
It seems, therefore, that the general White Paper approach of the development of a statutory licensing authority exercising strict controls over surrogacy and the storage of eggs and sperm and acting, if Parliament sees fit to approve—I hope that it will—as the licensing authority for the specific limited time approach on pre-embryos, is ethically and morally right. I hope that, like those in another place, hon. Members will eventually support that.
For those of us working in the area of disablement and handicap the extending of the frontiers of medical knowledge towards finding methods of eliminating and preventing severe abnormalities and curing established disablements incurred later in life represent a satisfying and rewarding future. From my personal contacts with the medical experts working on such research projects, I can say that I find them to be quiet, dedicated people who are responding to all the ethical and moral dilemmas that face us all. We must remember that they face and treat, day after day, the many thousands of sufferers from such dreadful diseases — and deal with their families. Their motivation to use the increased knowledge that they slowly acquire to help alleviate this suffering is surely

understandable. It does not lead to an excess of desire to drive a coach and horses through the ethical and moral barriers to which society adheres. They are intelligent people conscious of their moral responsibilities.
This debate, like that on 15 January in the other place, has been a deliberate one, but I hope that it will help to influence hon. Members and the world outside. I am grateful for the opportunity to put forward my views, which I desperately hope will accord with those of the majority in the House.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I want to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Minister by using a moderate and constructive approach similar to his. It is right that we should approach the debate's subject matter with compassion for couples who face the blow of childlessness due to infertility. As a mother of three, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) —I see that she is no longer with us—that I know the father of the three children concerned, and if she saw them, she would be in no doubt who he was. My hon. Friends certainly know him. Perhaps the hon. Lady is as fond as I am of the old calypso: "Your father's not your father but your father don't know".
However, as a mother I know only too well the mixed blessings that the children can bring. Predominantly, they bring joy, happiness and fulfilment to their parents. To those unfortunate people who yearn for children but are denied that fulfilment I express my genuine concern, understanding and sympathy.
My first point is that, however greatly a couple may wish to have children, to do so is not an absolute right. If it were, we should have devalued children to little more than property to be possessed. Children are not like that; they are not a right: they are a privilege. We must ensure that our Health Service makes provision to seek to alleviate infertility when it is realistically practical to do so, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it rests with an authority higher than doctors or specialists to decide whether a woman bears a child.
Secondly, the simple fact that can all too easily be overlooked is that experimentation on the human embryo is not the best way to alleviate infertility. Nor indeed is the technique of in-vitro fertilisation an appropriate one for dealing with the majority of such cases. I shall not enter into all the details of the argument now—it would take too long—but I should point out that infertility due to tubal occlusion is avoidable in many cases, arising as it all too often does from sexually transmitted disease, the aftereffect of abortion or a complication from having used an intra-uterine device.
Furthermore, IVF is only an appropriate treatment for infertility in a minority of cases. Those who want a solution to the majority of cases of infertility would do well to heed this fact and to accept that it would be a far better use of resources, and would help a great many more women to bear children, if those resources were used to highlight the problems of promiscuous sexual activity and abortion so as to prevent the occurrence of infertility in the first place. In other words, prevention is better than cure —and it is possible in the majority of cases of infertility. I want the House to take that point to heart.
I also want to highlight the work now being done by Dr. Kevin Rees, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, of Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport—which is near my


constituency—and of Dr. John McLean, senior lecturer in anatomy and embryology at the university of Manchester medical school. Those two doctors are working on a project to simplify the procedure of treating infertility due to tubal occlusion by transferring the ovum directly into the uterine cavity and allowing natural intercourse to provide the opportunity for in-vivo fertilisation. That new technique is particularly exciting because it could be used in many other types of infertility in addition to those for which IVF is considered appropriate.
I also draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health the fact that not only is this technique more widely applicable than IVF but it is also much cheaper and could, in the near future, be available through every district general hospital. If that does not strike the fear of God into my right hon. Friend's heart at the present time, I do not know what would. It should also be noted that the technique has been introduced and is being developed with no need for experimentation on the human embryo.
As the new technique holds out much brighter hope than IVF, at lower cost, for more women, why do a small number of individuals continue to promote IVF as the only solution? Could it be because of the financial gain that is possible through that high-tech but low-effect treatment? Perhaps it presents the opportunity for scientists to get their hands on the human embryo for other purposes. We can only speculate, but it remains beyond doubt that the usefulness of IVF is extremely limited.
Dr. Rees and Dr. McLean have applied to the North-West regional health authority for financial assistance with their work. I hope—I am sure that thousands of infertile women will share the hope—that such funding will eventually be forthcoming.
If we accept that IVF has a continuing role to play in the treatment of infertility, experimentation upon the human embryo need have no part in IVF. To explore the reasons behind the poor success rate of IVF, we need a careful study of those embryos which fail to implant and die, and of the wombs of the affected women, not of other living healthy embryos. It is not logical to suggest otherwise.
I wish to deal with one other aspect during this reasonably short speech—the false promises which have been made by so many people with an interest in allowing human embryo experimentation to continue. In debate in Committee on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, on which I served, we were repeatedly told by many, including the Medical Research Council, that such experiments would find a cure for genetic disease. This has proved a totally unfounded hope. During the five years which have passed since the Warnock committee began to consider these matters, there have been no great discoveries from those who argued for the use of the human embryo in this way.
Yet, on the other hand, dedicated research workers have shown considerable success in dealing with the problems of handicap without the use of the human embryo. Vitamin supplementation in early pregnancy has been shown to protect the human embryo from neural tube defects, such as spina bifida. New developments in molecular biology, applied to cells taken from adult

patients with, for example, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease and retinoblastoma, have generated a much greater understanding of the genetic factors responsible for these diseases, as well as their location within the human genome. There is also the possibility of treating and curing certain genetic blood diseases with bone marrow transplantation, and progress is also being make in seeking to work with those suffering from Down's syndrome.
It is clear, therefore, that there are fruitful and practical lines of investigation into handicap which do not require the use of a human embryo. I believe that this argument for the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig is nothing more than a red herring to distract attention away from those who wish to experiment in other directions, for example, in the development of new abortifacient drugs or contraceptives and, I fear, for possibly more sinister purposes. On the latter point, millions of pounds will be made by those scientists who are successful in those experiments. The House should address that point.
As the Medical Research Council, which has campaigned so actively for experimentation on the human embryo, has failed to acknowledge the wealth of opportunity which is available without the use of embryos and, as it has so persistently misrepresented to hon. Members the possible benefits of human embryo research, the time has come to re-examine whether this body should continue to receive Government funding.
If the MRC cannot supply accurate, impartial and useful information to hon. Members, we are left with no alternative but to call into question its ability to supervise the use of funds allocated by the Government from taxpayers, with the approval of this House, for research purposes.
Finally, I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the recommendation of the Warnock committee that the status of the human embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation. No other principle than that of a right to life, free of experimentation, could possibly be enshrined in legislation by this House. The duty of upholding this right must rest with the Minister, to such an extent that he would be abrogating his responsibilities if he passed responsibility for such matters to any new quango, such as a statutory licensing authority.
However, I hope that, when the House finally has the opportunity to enshrine these matters in legislation, it will accept that there is no ethical or constitutional alternative but to establish in law the right of the human embryo to be protected against those who would seek to experiment upon it, and to rest responsibility for ensuring that this remains the case directly with the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have not spoken in the previous debates on this subject. I have tended to reserve my contributions in this area to children at a later stage: child benefit, child abuse and family courts. However, I now have the privilege of being the parliamentary representative of the Medical Research Council, taking over from our former colleague, the previous Member for Canterbury, Sir David Crouch.
The Medical Research Council has been mentioned during the debate, not only by my hon. Friend the Member


for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). It is important to note that during the past 65 years the Medical Research Council has offered independent advice to Government. It was established by royal charter in 1920. Its research activities are wide ranging, covering the areas of cancer, heart disease, strokes—still the third-largest killer— mental illness, Alzheimer's disease, addiction, disorders of movement and balance, low back pain and much else.
It is important to see the Medical Research Council's involvement in embryo research in its proper context. Of a total budget of around £140 million, perhaps only 0·1 per cent. is spent in that area. However, it is important work. Together with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Medical Research Council has been responsible for the voluntary licensing authority. In the light of remarks that have been made about the activities of the Voluntary Licensing Authority, it is important to give credit to Dame Mary Donaldson, the chairman, who, with impeccable credentials, has carried out that important work without reproach as a lay chairman working for the best interests of research and the public.
During this thoughtful debate, mention has been made of contributions from the other place. I refer especially to the comments of the Archbishop of York who talked about the moral need to continue research. To stop research on pre-embryos at this stage, with in-vitro techniques in their present state, would be a cruelty to those receiving this treatment for infertility. The success rates are so low and the dangers of multiple births are so great that to stop now would be an inhuman option.
Similarly, important research remains to be completed in the area of contraception. With the world's population increasing at the rate of 250,000 people per day, there are further developments to be made in that area.
A similar argument applies to the prevention of handicap. Many moving accounts have been given today of people's personal experiences. Before entering Parliament, I worked with a family with Huntington's chorea, where each member of the family had a 50–50 chance of inheriting that mentally and physically degenerative disorder, leading ultimately to death. For mothers with Huntington's chorea in the family, having the option of producing a healthy child can be regarded only as a pro-life solution.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes urged caution before hastily outlawing research during our earlier debates on the Bill of our former colleague, Mr. Enoch Powell.
A report of the Conservative Women's National Committee showed a majority in favour of the establishment of a statutory licensing authority to permit supervised research on the embryo before the 14-day limit. It is broadly understood by many people that at 14 days the embryo becomes a rather more developed cell cluster. At the early stage, embryos are regularly lost by means of the intra-uterine device.
There are arguments now for moving with considerable speed towards legislation. Time and trouble has been taken in the preparation of the White Paper. There is broad agreement on many areas. Opinion has moved with the publication of the White Paper.
This is an important subject. We debated only recently the time limits for abortion. In conclusion, I can do no more than remind hon. Members of the contribution made

by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science when we last discussed the subject three years ago with which I entirely agree. He then said:
Parliament has licensed the termination of the life of embryos by abortion up to the 28th week after conception.
Many hon. Members would support that being reduced further now.
Among the circumstances that are implicitly allowed to permit an abortion is the possibility of serious congenital abnormality in the unborn child. Parliament has thus recognised the legitimacy of terminating the prospect of human life for a defective embryo. Should it now turn its back on the emergence of technical possibilities which might enable an embryo to come to a normal and natural life with its abnormalities corrected or prevented in the womb? These technical possibilities …might make it possible to avoid procuring an abortion. In these circumstances we must surely ask, which stance is 'pro-life' a nd which stance is 'anti-life'." —[Official Report, 15 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 681–682.]

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Not least because of the Minister's well-balanced and reasonable opening speech, we have had an excellent debate. We have heard many sincerely held, if different, views. I do not think any hon. Member would do other than congratulate the Government on their initiative in 1982 in setting up the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. However, while their foresight is to be commended, the composition of the committee left a great deal to be desired, as every member started by being in favour of the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. Two members afterwards changed their mind and signed a minority report opposing the use of the human embryo in that way, but it would have been a prerequisite for anybody serving on the committee to favour the experimental use of the human embryo. It was not a good start.
It says a great deal for those involved that, in the ultimate, seven of the 16 members of the committee dissented from the main report, which recommended that it should be permitted to manufacture embryonic human beings specifically for experimental use. Not surprisingly, the report was not acclaimed by the general public, albeit the media did its utmost to present it as a step in the right direction for a civilised society. The fact is that the vast majority of the British public were not having it, as many hon. Members can confirm from their post-bags or from public opinion surveys that have been carried out.
This became obvious when the Department of Health and Social Security sent out the Warnock report, calling for comments on it. Many of the comments demonstrated clearly the revulsion with which many people viewed the recommendations of the Warnock committee, despite the huge press campaign which was launched to try to convince people that if the use of the human embryo for experiments was banned we would see research into cures for genetic and chromosomal diseases brought to a halt, as well as work on infertility stopped. To my mind, this was one of the most cruel aspects of the campaign against pro-lifers, particularly as those involved must have known this to be totally untrue. They must have known the tragic effect this would have on the many thousands of couples who were unable to have children or who have handicapped children.
Every hon. Member owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Enoch Powell when in December 1984 — at that time he was the Member for South Down — he


decided to use his place in the private Member's ballot to introduce the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, with the aim of outlawing the experimental use of the embryonic human being. It would not have resulted in the prevention of in-vitro fertilisation if the aim was to allow an infertile woman to bear a child. However, it would have stopped the use of either spare embryos or especially manufactured embryos from being used as guinea pigs.
The House does not need to be reminded of what happened to the Powell Bill. Few of us will ever forget the manner in which it was talked out, with the result that not only were pro-lifers outraged, but many hon. Members who do not support my views on the issue were appalled, and the media became more anxious to put across the pro-life cause.
The following year I decided to reintroduce the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. However, our antagonists were determined that it would not even be given a Second Reading. As a result, I reintroduced it as a ten-minute Bill, when we determined that we would have a vote, particularly as our opponents kept informing the press and the media at large that we had lost support since Enoch Powell attempted to change the law. The vote on my Bill showed that this was not so, as we won by 229 to 129. That indicated quite clearly that, if anything, there had been an increase in the number of hon. Members who supported it.
Since then my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) have demonstrated the determination of the majority view of the House, reflecting the majority view of the people, by attempting to reintroduce the Bill.
In the meantime, we have witnessed an innovation. Like other hon. Members, I have heard of all manner of press launches for any number of marketable products. I was surprised that those in favour of experiments on embryos organised a press reception at which they launched a new word. They did not announce it as a new word, but launch it they did. The word was "pre-embryo", and we have heard it many times in the debate. They spoke as if it were the norm and as though anatomists, doctors and scientists had been using it for centuries. It appears in no book of biology, anatomy or medical dictionary published in this country or, to my knowledge, anywhere in the world.
It certainly was not used by the Warnock committee. One of its members, Dr. David Davies—who signed the main report supporting the production of embryonic human beings, especially for use in experiments—had the integrity to point that out when he wrote in the scientific journal, Nature. He said:
I am reasonably sure that at least in (Warnock Committee) discussions the word 'pre-embryo' was never used …If research on embryos were an uncontentious matter, and if scientists were generally of the opinion that the new terminology helped their understanding, nobody would have any qualms at the name change. But those who are introducing the word 'pre-embryo' into the vocabulary know full well that the research is indeed contentious and that fundamental issues have yet to be resolved.
In other words, a member of the Warnock committee, who quite obviously does not agree with us, was complaining at the manner in which some scientists strive to manipulate public opinion by the invention of words

that have no true meaning, and which certainly do not describe the human at conception. Pre-embryo may fairly describe the sperm and ovum before fertilisation, but there is no way in which the human at conception or after conception could be so described.
I am delighted to see that the ploy has not worked. The majority inside and outside the House still want the human embryo protected. They regard it, as do I, as a member of the human family from the moment of conception. They reject words such as "pre-embryo", which are intended to suggest that it is less than human.
It is to the credit of the Government's White Paper that it does not indulge in the misuse of words. However, on reading it, it is difficult not to suspect that the decision to indulge in a second round of consultation on the Warnock report was made to delay a decision in the hope that public opinion might change. I am glad to have received an assurance from the Minister that that was not so.
There is nothing new in the White Paper. It simply reiterates what the Warnock committee said on the issue. That is made even more regrettable when we realise that evidence was submitted, which was approved by some of the most eminent scientists in Britain, America and Europe, showing that what we said in 1985 was being substantiated by developments in the scientific world. That evidence shows that the human embryo is not required to make advances in seeking the cause and cure of genetic diseases, infertility and other problems.
I note with some concern that the Government have concluded that an independent statutory licensing authority should be established. What guarantee will Parliament be given that it is independent and unbiased? If the committee of inquiry can be made up of members who all share the same views, as I have outlined, how can we be sure that the statutory licensing authority will not be manned in the same way? That remains a worry, although I was glad to hear an assurance about that from the Minister in his opening speech. Infertility treatments and services should be directly controlled by Parliament under the Secretary of State. So far-reaching will be the effects on society of the legislation that we shall shortly introduce that it will be one of the most, if not the most, important pieces of legislation to come before the House.
I hope that we shall ensure that the most defenceless of our society — unborn human beings — are at least preserved from being used as human guinea pigs. When an experiment could not possibly be for his or her benefit, it has never previously been acceptable for it to be carried out without that person's consent. That position must continue, otherwise we shall be setting out on a slippery slope.
I should like to congratulate the Government on the part of the report that promises that the House will be granted an opportunity to vote on two alternative clauses. It lays that out quite clearly and fairly. I call on the Government to ensure that that clarity is maintained when the Bill is ultimately produced. I urge that that should be done without further delay. We have waited long enough, and it is time to act to give the human embryo the legal protection that we all enjoy.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: It was an honour for me to come 17th in the ballot for private Members' Bills this Session and to take on the mantle of my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr.
Hargreaves) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Powell, in introducing the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill which lies at the heart of the discussion this evening.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health and Social Security on bringing forward the report that is the basis of this evening's debate. They have recognised that there are deep feelings inside and outside the House over the sensitive issue of embryo research. I hope that in the very near future—I stress very near future — the report will be translated into legislation. I hope, too, that the legislation will reach the statute book in Government time.
I am sure that my colleagues would agree that it is only the strength of feeling inside and outside the House that has ensured that we will be given the choice, through the White Paper, to decide whether to allow embryo research in legislation in future. That is the central point. I do not want to discuss any other details from the report now.
I speak for people who have children and for those who have struggled to have children. My wife and I, unlike many other fortunate members of the community, did not have children easily. We had to struggle. I appreciate the problems about infertility and childlessness. However, deeper issues are involved, as many of my hon. Friends have said.
I am also interested in research. As president of the charity Action Research for the Crippled Child in my constituency, I am keen to see that research to prevent child diseases is fully funded. However, setting aside my interest in those things, I must state that there is a deeper and more fundamental argument about the nature of life. Whatever view we may take about this, our view of life and its creation is fundamental to this issue.
The major division between us is that those of us who would outlaw research on embryos believe that life begins at fertilisation, inside or outside the womb. Once fertilisation begins there is the potential for life. I want to bury some of the arguments that have been put forward tonight against that view.
It has been suggested that the embryo has only the chance for life. Not only has it a chance for life; the embryo is life. We should not forget that fundamental point. It has also been said that the embryo has a chance to develop. I would argue that we should not deprive that life of the chance for development. Embryonic human beings must not be treated like laboratory rabbits. Research on embryos would bring about such treatment. Most important of all, embryos should have not just a chance for development. The issue is about human rights. It is about the right to live and the most important issue of human dignity. We must consider the fact that those embryos have the right to live. It is their human right to live, and we must protect that right.
For too long the law has ignored the rights of the unborn child. We will be able to protect those rights when legislation is introduced on this matter. We will be able to vote and correct the imbalance that has existed for many years.
Another argument that is put against it is what I would call the "not yet" fallacy—that the embryo is not yet a person, not yet a member of the human race, and for that reason it is quite all right to treat it as a spare, to be experimented on and frozen. These things are permissible, but I totally reject all of these arguments. I take the view —and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will take

the same view— that the embryo is a person with the potential for life and has human rights. We must respect those rights.
Everybody in the human race started as that little cluster of cells that has been much maligned. That cluster of cells has led to life for people throughout this country and the world. We must respect it. One of the problems in the attitude of those engaged in embryo research is the failure to accept that need for respect.
There are those who say that there is no alternative to embryo research. I was in the House when the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, who is unfortunately no longer a Member, introduced his Bill. We were told then that this was the only way. In the past few months, since introducing my Bill, I have considered some of the research that is going on. No one has come forward and said that he has made a major breakthrough with the use of fertilised embryos in research. It has been a case of saying, "Tomorrow, tomorrow." But, while we do nothing, these things march on.
It is time to deal with the problem. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) put her finger on it when she said that in other areas, using different techniques, major breakthroughs are being made, especially in relation to molecular biology, in cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease. Work is being done by Dr. John McLean at Manchester university. Let us not forget the greatest of all the researchers in this area, Professor Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the basis of Down's syndrome, and who is still working in that area. He is a tower of strength, and he says that there are alternative ways of doing this research. We must indeed follow those alternative ways.
Let us also not forget that when the Warnock committee reported a minority report was signed by Professor Marshall, professor of clinical neurology at London university, and six others. The impression given by the supporters of embryo research is that the medical profession is united and speaks with one voice. That is far from the truth, and the public ought to know that.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. It is a fundamental issue that we must look at most carefully. I welcome the judgment of the Government in recognising the strength of feeling on both sides and allowing a free vote. Legislation cannot be brought forward soon enough. I look forward in the next few months to debating this most important subject yet again.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate, especially as tribute has been made to my colleague the former Member of Parliament for South Down. When he was introducing his Bill, he said that there comes a stage where we must put up signposts and markers. In that context, I believe that when scientists are doing their job and have a task to do, which I sympathise with and understand, it is the responsibility of Parliament to put up the markers to guide them. For, even within the scientific fraternity, as they are human, they can err like the rest of us.
It is in that context that the House can legislate. It is important to remind scientists who support embryo research and experimentation that historically some of the greatest breakthroughs have come not from the majority but from the one imaginative person who went his own


way. The medical profession and others do no service to the community when they denigrate the work of Professor Lejeune because he is working on his own.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the way he introduced the debate. I welcome the acceptance by the Government in paragraph 63 of the White Paper that
the sale or purchase of gametes or embryos should be controlled so as to avoid the risk of commercial exploitation.
I am sceptical about how that will be achieved. I have put down questions in the past about the commercial use of foetuses and I have got very inadequate replies. Therefore, I ask the Government to have second thoughts on how they will control such use in future.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I welcome the fact that a broad range of views has been expressed in the debate, not because I was unclear about my position and might have been helped by listening to those views — indeed, I have a firm view on the matter—but because I might have had a sense of unease if we had not heard different views. There is something sick about a society which stops questioning itself about these issues. We have to have a creative tension. We must have constant argument, even though I might end up making a decision completely different from that of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I can see why it is tempting for some people to say, "Let us not look over the precipice. It involves very difficult issues. If we start going down this path, who knows where we may end?" I can understand the fear that that causes some people.
We cannot turn our back on the possibilities that are opened up by research on pre-embryos, for two main reasons. The first is infertility, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members. No one knows how many men and women are affected by the inability to conceive, but we know that many who want to have children, but cannot, say nothing about it. Many suffer in silence, partly because men fear that if they admit that they cannot have children somehow it casts doubt on their manliness, and for women the admission flies in the face of the traditional assumption that it is the most natural thing for a woman to do, and the most central part of a woman's life.
Because infertility is such a sensitive issue, it remains largely hidden. I have no doubt that the inability to conceive affects many people. Estimates range from one in six to one in ten. I hope that the Government will follow up Lady Warnock's proposal that we must collect statistics and carry out more research into the true level of infertility.
The research which has been done so far suggests that about 1 million people are affected. It causes great suffering. The inability to have children can sour the most loving of relationships. It can embitter the happiest of people and can cause great distress. Just as I respect the deeply held views of hon. Members who oppose the research which has led to in-vitro fertilisation and the research which could make IVF more successful, so they should recognise the blight that infertility casts over the lives of so many.
Hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Castle Point who has three children, the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) who has three children and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet)

who has two children should be very careful before they argue that people should accept their fate and not go down the road of trying to ensure that research leads to greater possibilities for treatment of infertility.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady is making a most interesting speech and I know that she would not wish to mislead the House. I have never taken that view. I am in favour of IVF and of the research that has taken place. I am not in favour of the proposal that a free hand should be given to experimentation, not on the pre-embryo —a term which is used so loosely — but on the human embryo, which has the potential of being a human being.

Ms. Harman: In response, I would remind hon. Members of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that one is in favour of IVF treatment as offering hope to some infertile couples and yet say that one is against the research that has led us to the situation we are in now and makes it possible to make that treatment more successful in the future.

Sir Bernard Braine: I gave examples to the House. There are leading scientists who tell us that there are alternative means of research that are delivering the goods.

Ms Harman: I shall get to that point later in my speech. I am also very concerned about the line of argument that emerged from the speech of the hon. Member for Congleton, which smacked rather of blaming the victim. Some infertility is caused by intra-uterine devices, some infertility is caused by sexually transmitted diseases, some infertility is caused by abortion; therefore, it is asked, have not those people somehow brought their infertility upon themselves? That adds insult to the suffering of all those who are not able to conceive.
There is also the suffering and misery caused by miscarriage. The fact that miscarriage is a relatively common occurrence in no way lessens the heartache for the woman and her partner. If some women are offered through IVF a chance of bearing a child, and if embryo research offers a chance of understanding the factors that can cause a miscarriage, we simply cannot turn our backs on it.
I also think that the Government ought to take very seriously Lady Warnock's proposal that we must have a proper review of infertility services. It is quite wrong that for a poor family that suffers infertility there is no chance of treatment, IVF or any other, because of the lack of availability of fertility treatment on the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister will assure us tonight that she regards fertility treatment as a part of the NHS, not as a luxury optional extra which is available only to people who can afford it by giving up their second holiday.
The second major reason why we must not turn away from embryo research is the continuing task of trying to prevent handicap. Work is being carried out to find ways of preventing chromosomal abnormalities and hereditary genetic illnesses. We heard in the most courageous and moving speech from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) why this work simply has to go on. The work to control defects such as Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and haemophilia is very important.
We are not absolutist about this problem. We are not saying that the only way to make breakthroughs is


through research on embryos. We are saying that we do not want to rule out one avenue which might lead to the possibility of controlling those very serious defects.
It is easy to understand why we have to take advantage of this medical advance, and it is right that we should understand also why we should control it. I do not say that we should have a statutory licensing authority because we think that we need the research and therefore are prepared to concede that point to make it somehow more acceptable. I firmly believe that we must control this, and we must ensure that it is properly monitored and supervised.
I was talking on the telephone last night to a Dr. Rothman, in California, who is the leading expert in America on a new technique called sperm harvesting. That involves taking the sperm from somebody who has died and giving it to his relatives so that they might use it in future. Doctor Rothman gave the example of an only son dying and his bereaved parents asking for his sperm to be harvested so that at some future date they could arrange for somebody to have his child. Then they could feel that somehow their child lived on, because they could have the grandchild that otherwise would have been impossible. Doctor Rothman said that in America that was regarded as completely uncontroversial and that everyone thought that it was a good idea to extend such possibilities. In Britain we would not take that view.
We must have a statutory licensing authority which, instead of waiting for such developments and then saying that they should be stopped, will constantly keep an eye on the direction in which such developments are going, and ensure that they do not go off the rails. I support the statutory licensing authority that was suggested by Lady Warnock.
If we remember what happened last year, when the Humana hospital refused to accept the ruling of the Voluntary Licensing Authority that the number of embryos implanted should be limited to four, we can understand why, although the Voluntary Licensing Authority has done a great deal of good work, it should become a statutory authority.
I should like to say a few words about the time limit in which research should take place. There have been a number of suggestions, but any time limit is arbitrary. The Warnock committee canvassed a 14-day time limit, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested 28 days, the Medical Research Council suggested two to three weeks, and some have suggested 30 days. If we are to have a statutory, fixed time limit, we should also have, if it is not a contradiction in terms, some flexibility. The Government and the House should consider the possibility of allowing the statutory licensing authority to lay down a certain maximum time limit. That would provide a legal maximum time limit of, say, 21 days, and allow the statutory licensing authority to decide where, beneath that time, the limit should be for getting a licence.
It is remarkable that there has been so little discussion of surrogacy. I am against commercial surrogacy, but the Government were right not to have chosen the option of trying to outlaw surrogacy, other than for commerical reasons. In America, where they sell sperm for 35 dollars a go and where they sell blood and other human tissues, it is not surprising that they should not jib at the idea of womb leasing. We do not want such a situation to develop here.
I should like to say something about the rights of children born to mothers who have had artificial insemination by donor. In America, a real crisis occurred when a woman had had artificial insemination by donor. Her husband knew about it and the names of the husband and wife were on the birth certificate. The child did not know that it had been conceived by a donor instead of by its father until the family broke up. In the bitterness of the divorce, the mother claimed that the father should have no access or visiting rights, because he was not the real father.
We must be cautious about situations in which the whole of family life can be built on a deceit, whether it is a deceit about which only two people know or whether all the other relatives know but the child is unaware of it. We must be very careful about that. In America there is a club of children born by artificial insemination by donor who are going around the United States looking for their donor fathers and campaigning for the right to know the identity of their natural fathers. We must look for future difficulties that have not yet occurred because the children produced by artificial insemination by donor are not yet sufficiently grown up.
Medical and scientific advances present at the same time tremendous possibilities and tremendous problems. We should not disregard the problems. A statutory licensing authority with a fixed maximum time limit of 21 days on embryo research would give me sufficient reassurance. However, for the sake of those who long to have children and cannot conceive, for the sake of those who can conceive but suffer repeated miscarriages, and for the sake of those who through genetic disorders are condemned to watch their children suffer and die, we must allow research to continue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Let me start by joining the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) in paying tribute to the Warnock committee, to Lady Warnock herself, to the members of the Voluntary Licensing Authority and, indeed, to all who have contributed to producing the papers on which we base our debate today. The hon. Lady is right in saying that, we should not isolate any one issue, and that the Government must legislate. This is Government business. That is also part of the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). We do not feel that we can leave the question of the time limit to an extra-Government body; it must be decided ultimately by the House.
The hon. Member for Barking raised a number of points with which I should like to deal immediately. She asked about the composition and role of the proposed statutory licensing authority. I agree with her that it would be a pity if there were polarisation in the SLA. It would also be a pity, however, if its membership did not command public respect, and that will be our aim in appointing it.
It is also worth pointing out that, whether or not research is permitted by vote of the House, the SLA will still have a substantial role, as set out in the White Paper— among other things, in licensing the clinics where IVF and other work is to be done.
I entirely take the hon. Lady's point about women members, but I suggest that we do not put a figure on it. I do not agree with her argument that women should be


included because it is they who have the babies. I think that our men are involved somewhere along the line! As for the argument that women form half the population and should therefore be adequately represented, if the hon. Lady looks at recent appointments to the Health Education Authority and the breast cancer advisory committee she will find that that is exactly what has been happening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) asked about alternatives to embryo research in their important speeches. No one favours the unnecessary use of embryos in research for benefits which could be obtained in other ways. The White Paper proposes that, if research is permitted, the SLA should satisfy itself, in granting a licence, that adequate consideration has been given to the possibility of achieving the aims of the project by other means.
As for the question of a list of diseases, I understand that most genetically linked diseases can be studied in the embryo form. Some can be studied in non-embryonic human material, and others in non-human material. However, our view is that if Parliament permits such work at all, the SLA should look at each proposed programme and check whether there are any ways other than using human embryo material. In other words, research using human embryos, if permitted at all, should never be the first resort. We are not sure whether we should want to insist on its being the last resort, because there may be occasions when it is the best resort in terms of potential success.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend has said that research should not be the last resort. Will she confirm—I speak as a supporter of the majority of the Warnock report's recommendations — that some research is essential, and that we can look forward to further research that is regarded as essential, and often as a first resort?

Mrs. Currie: I take my hon. Friend's point. It will be a matter for the House to decide whether, on occasions when research is the best resort—or, indeed, one of the possibilities — it wishes to allow that research to continue. The purpose of our debate tonight is simply to enable points of view to be offered, and no doubt they will all be taken into account in the drafting of the legislation. That is why the debate has been called in Government time.
I therefore feel that I need not answer in detail all the points that have been made, but should merely say to all hon. Members on both sides of the House that their views will be taken into account as the legislation and the regulations are prepared, as soon as parliamentary time will permit.
We have heard 20 speeches today. Most, we are glad to see, welcomed the White Paper in one form or another. In some areas the White Paper goes further than the Warnock report—for example, in proposing to prohibit some kinds of research, such as genetic engineering and the development of clones or hybrids, in imposing stricter controls on the storage of embryos and in banning the sale of embryos and gametes. In other areas, such as surrogacy,

we have not gone as far as the Warnock report recommended, because we do not believe that criminal sanctions are the right approach.
The legislation, when it is introduced, will firm up or adjust points of detail in the White Paper, but today's debate suggests that we may have got the basic framework about right. Procedure, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels, but no doubt they will take note of his views.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the sanctity of life and the special nature of the human embryo. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will allow me simply to use the term "human embryo" and not some of the other terms that have been suggested. Feelings about the sanctity of life and the special nature of the material about which we are talking are shared by all. The debate has shown that there are strongly-held views about whether humanity commences at contraception or some point thereafter. I refer all hon. Members to the learned speech by the Archbishop of York in the other place who took us elegantly around that subject.
For those who want embryo research to continue, I notice support for the Warnock committee's view that the appearance of the primitive streak might well be a sensible point in the continuing development at which to impose the time limit. It will be entirely for the House to decide whether research should be permitted on human embryos before that date.
However, we are firm in our view that such work should be illegal after that date. It is our respect for the particular status of the human embryo that leads us to say that we cannot go on any longer without legislation in this area, with the sort of "anything goes" approach which has sometimes been urged upon us.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North said, it is not a question of starting down the slippery slope; we are on it. We must put a stop to the slide somewhere. It will be a matter entirely for Parliament to decide where the limit should be placed. It must be Parliament, not scientists or clerics, which takes that decision. That is what we have set out to do.
Subject to that, the Government are determined to see on to the statute book legislation which clearly defines the kind of work which can and cannot be carried out with human embryos, and anything outside that definition will be banned if the legislation is accepted by the House.
Our thoughts have been guided, as indeed have those of many hon. Members, by a keen concern for the sanctity of family life. That is why we have already moved to ban commercial third-party surrogacy, and that is why we propose that surrogacy contracts of all kinds should be made non-enforceable. I am concerned, as is the hon. Member for Peckham, that we should not have any development of practices which have been seen in the United States and which have been dubbed "baby farming." That is also why we believe that the law should make it clear how the child relates to the mother who bore him and to those who bring him up. That point was strongly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North.
We have already legislated, in the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which applies only to unmarried couples and which comes into force in April this year, to make it clear that the AID child is in law the child of the mother and


her husband and should be registered as such. Under our proposals, that will apply to IVF and GIFT children, too, where donated gametes are used. It is also important, since that legislation applies only in England and Wales, that we achieve some consistency with Scotland, and that is also proposed in the White Paper.
We shall also make it clear that the mother who carries a baby is, in the eyes of the law, that baby's mother, even if she is not genetically related. Any other line would weaken the role of the family and those whom I would call the caring parents—those who provide a home for the child and bring it up. The words in the White Paper are clear:
the donors of the gametes or embryos will have no parental rights or duties in relation to the child.
That is the legal view. In other words, our thoughts in framing the proposals have always been, "What is best for the child? What will best ensure that he or she is brought up in a secure, loving and caring environment?"
Let me say a little more about the rights of the child. I feel rather sad that in all that we have heard today there has been too little discussion about the rights of the child after birth—except by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes)—

Ms. Harman: And me.

Mrs. Currie: My apologies. I wrote this bit of the speech before I heard the hon. Lady's speech and that of her hon. Friend the Member for Barking. I am sure that both hon. Ladies would agree that we must legislate so that the child may know his right to a name, to inherit property, and, if he wishes, to obtain some information about his origin. We will take into account the fact that attitudes on this matter may well change in time and make provision for that. Children born as a result of treatments using donated gametes should not suffer the anxiety that they may be related to a large unknown family of half brothers and half sisters especially taking into account the dangers, outlined by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), that may be generated when close relatives—albeit unnamed close relatives — come together to marry and have children. We may therefore need to set a limit on the number of pregnancies that may result from one donor. We shall look to the statutory licensing authority to consider that.
As has been pointed out, most of the research done on embryos is intended to promote knowledge about conception and handicap and its prevention. There are two points to make on that. First, whatever one's view of the nature of early life, strict controls are needed on the treatment of human embryos. Those who argue that the benefits that research can bring — for example, in preventing handicap—justify the use of embryos before 14 days must recognise, nevertheless, the genuine fears of those who worry that the same techniques in different hands could lead to less laudable goals. That is why we propose that all such work — to the extent that Parliament permits it—should be strictly controlled by a statutory body, that licences should be tied to specific projects—that would cover both means and ends, both methodology and intentions—and that it should be an offence to go beyond what is expressly permitted. In that we concur entirely with the Warnock committee.
Secondly, people have a right to expect us to do our utmost to prevent disease and handicap. Parents who

carry defective genes have a right to expect sound information about their chances of passing them on or avoiding such transmission. A lot of misery and anguish is potentially avoidable and may be influenced by research of the kind that has been described. I hope, therefore, that those both for and against the Warnock proposals will recognise the high degree of sincerity and motivation on both sides.
Let me deal with the point about the private and the public sectors. Clearly, it is important that there should be consistency in ethical standards and good professional standards across the divide between the public and private sectors. The statutory licensing authority will be able to achieve that consistency, which Ministers regard as a major benefit of legislation. We give notice that we will not allow the ethical framework within which the treatments are provided to differ in any way as between the private sector and the National Health Service. That is especially important now that close links are developing between the two sectors, including the Barts-AMI link which has been mentioned several times. The number of women treated there will increase from 300 a year under the Health Service to about 1,000 under the joint arrangements.
I am prepared to see some differences between the opposing Front Benches, but I would resist Opposition Members' demands that we should expand activity in the Health Service to meet all the demands placed on it now or in future. On treatments involving new technologies —particularly GIFT—some may feel that, because of their ethical difficulties, because they are expensive, because as yet the success rates are poor and because some would say that they are treatments for people who are not ill in the strict sense, they should not be part of NHS provision at all. The Government do not agree with that. We see no cause to ban such treatments from the Health Service, provided that their practice is properly regulated. There is a fully funded NHS in-vitro fertilisation clinic in Manchester, as the hon. Member for Barking may know, and many of the others are partly funded. It is for the local health authorities to decide whether that work is of sufficiently high priority to put off something else.
I hope that the House will agree with me when I say that we should not forget that all the latest techniques cannot help everyone. I do not believe that people's status is determined by whether they have children. Childless people are not, in any way, lesser people. We all have our contribution to make to society. Although for many women that contribution is by bearing and bringing up their children, for others it is by other means. To be childless is not to be less of a woman, less of a man or less of a citizen. I deeply hope that that thought may offer a little consolation to some of those who are listening tonight.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

10 pm

Mr. Roy Beggs: May I place on record my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting me to draw attention to the misleading information supplied to me by the director of operations—the deputy chief executive—of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on behalf of its chairman.
On 7 December 1987 my Ulster Unionist colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) who is here tonight and will, I hope, catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), the mayor of Lisburn, Mr. Bleakes, and myself, met the chairman and senior officers of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive at the housing centre in Belfast. It was not a social call and we declined to accept any hospitality prior to a formal business meeting. It was an opportunity to raise specific matters and to have them dealt with on behalf of constituents.
At that meeting I referred particularly to problems in my constituency and to the problems being experienced at the Windmill estate, Carrickfergus, where windows larger than the original windows had been installed in some properties. I had been informed that new venetian blinds and curtains, fitted to suit the original windows, became a total loss to the tenants who could not afford to replace them after the imposed change in window size. I sought information and assistance for my constituents.
The director of operations, the deputy chief executive, replied on behalf of the chairman of the Housing Executive about the four areas of concern that I had raised at the meeting. His letter, dated 18 December, dealt with the specific issues of redevelopment proposals at Tullygarley, Lame, the Windmill estate, Carrickfergus, Green Walk, Rathcoole and Ballystrudder. He gave a detailed response and for the information of the House I should like to place on record his response to the problems at the Windmill estate, Carrickfergus:
At present, there is an ongoing planned external maintenance scheme at Westmount Avenue, Windmill, Carrickfergus which includes for the replacement of front and rear panels and front and rear windows. However, from the date the proposals were submitted to Building Control until the contract was awarded, regulations in relation to lighting and ventilation changed with the result that the demands of our original windows did not now satisfy the current Building Regulations, and so large windows were installed in the first five dwellings and curtains and venetian blinds no longer fitted. The contractor has now come to an agreement with the tenants by way of compensation, and in view of the publicity surrounding this contract, the Building Control Officers have now agreed that we can revert to the original specification and provide windows of a smaller size to those being replaced.
I work closely with all the councillors in my constituency. Fortunately for me, in east Antrim we have no Sinn Fein councillors to work with. I, in turn, endeavour to enlist the support of councillors and undertake to keep them informed.
Early in the new year, on 8 January, I copied the relevant reply from the Housing Executive about the Windmill estate to the mayor of Carrickfergus, Alderman Jim Brown. Because of the repeated references in that reply, I copied it to the district building control officer at the town hall in Carrickfergus and asked him for his comments, which were as follows:



(1) There is no minimum size requirement regarding windows in the Building Regulations.
(2) There has been no change in the Building Regulations regarding minimum window size since Building Regulations were introduced in 1973.
(3) The Building Regulations do not require that buildings erected under former control, e.g. Bye-laws, be brought to current standards."

How can those points be reconciled with the statement I received on behalf of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Is it not more than a coincidence that an application for building regulation approval arrived at the building control department in Carrickfergus borough council on 8 December 1987, a day after my visit to the Housing Executive headquarters in Belfast?
The building control officer's fourth point was this:
Application for Building Regulation approval was not received until the 8 December 1987. This followed my becoming aware of the work which was being carried out following press reports of the controversy in early December, 1987. I then drew to the attention of the N.I.H.E. and their agents that an application was required for the work which was being carried out.
So the executive was aware that no application had been properly made. The fifth point was:
Since there was no requirement under the Building Regulations, to change the window size in the first instance, I did not subsequently agree that windows of the original size would be satisfactory. There was no necessity for such an agreement!
Again I was very concerned at the apparent contradiction in that statement.
I am a simple man, brought up to believe every word from my mother's lips. She often said, "Now come on, son —tell the truth and shame the devil," and I always tried to please her. I believe that even when the truth hurts it must be told. It is vitally important that hon. Members should be completely confident, and be able to place their trust in their dealings with other hon. Members and with civil servants in our various Government Departments. They should even be able to place their trust and confidence in their dealings with officers employed in quangos such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Since applying for and being granted this Adjournment debate, I received the following correspondence, dated 29 January 1988, from the director of operations. I do not know whether to believe it. but here it is:
Dear Mr. Beggs,
I wrote to you on 18th December 1987 responding to a number of matters which you had raised when representatives of your Party met with the Executive on 7th December 1987.
In that reply (paragraph 2), I referred to the external maintenance scheme for Westmount Avenue, Windmill, Carrickfergus and I gave an explanation for the change of window size in the first five dwellings of the project.
I have now been advised that my reply on this matter was inaccurate. The information was provided by the Executive's professional Consultants responsible for the project and the Executive Officer who prepared the reply had no reason to believe that the information provided to him was incorrect. It was inconceiveable that the Consultant would allow the project to proceed on site without seeking formal Building Control approval.
The Executive acknowledges that neither the Building Regulations, nor Building Controls were in any way responsible for the change of windows which occurred to five dwellings in Westmount Avenue.
I am most concerned that the information given to you was incorrect and offer my sincere apologies.
I, too, am most concerned that I should have received such a response in the first instance. It should never have been necessary for that officer, at his level, to have to come back with such a response. However, if I had not asked for

comment by the building control officer in Carrickfergus council, the misleading information would not have been detected. This experience has shattered the confidence of elected members of my party in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It makes one believe that it is necessary to look closely at every reply one receives.
It is not unreasonable for some of us to ask how many similar cover-ups have gone unchallenged. I do not think that anyone could consider that to be an unreasonable thought to harbour. I am not so ungracious as not to accept the follow-up letter of explanation and apology, dated 29 January, from the executive.
From this singularly disgraceful experience, my party colleagues believe that no expense must be spared by the Minister in providing full and detailed answers to questions raised in the House regarding activities in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which requires more thorough scrutiny than occurs at present. The Minister answered questions on this matter, on 3 February 1988, from my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), whose disappointment and dissatisfaction I share. The costs likely to be incurred in making available the information sought through those written answers is well worth it.
I bring this matter to the attention of the House and of the Minister. I trust that he will agree with me that it should never have been necessary for me to bring this matter to the House or for him to be here to deal with it. It is inconceivable that such inaccurate information should have been relayed to a Member of this House. I trust that the Minister will assure the House that such action as is necessary will be taken to ensure that it can never happen again, and that the so-called professional consultants who proffered the advice in the first instance are reprimanded. Otherwise, I am sure, that some of us could legitimately feel that those who supplied the information had been apt pupils of Sir Robert Armstrong in being economical with the truth, or guilty, as another distinguished gentleman once said, of terminological inexactitude.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am glad to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) in this matter. My remarks will be short, and I hope to the point.
I must admit that I speak more in sorrow than in anger. Along with my colleagues on this Bench, I have endeavoured to work a system which I find undemocratic and generally unresponsive to the needs of my constituents. It is a shock to find that our efforts to iron out general housing problems by having a full and frank discussion with top officials of the body responsible for housing in Northern Ireland have been exploited by deflecting our relevant and specific questions with what has subsequently turned out to be misleading information.
It is even more surprising that that should have happened at the meeting referred to by my hon. Friend, which took place on 7 December. It was attended not only by senior officers of the Housing Executive, but by a representative number of the board members, including the board chairman.
I remind the House and the Minister that this is the second time recently that the conduct of that body has been raised in this place. It was last raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth). On that occasion he was concerned that Members of Parliament,


all of us from Northern Ireland, had been told that we could not raise any matter on behalf of our constituents without producing to the Housing Executive a letter of authority from the constituent concerned. I am glad that that mistaken impression was subsequently corrected and each of us received a letter of apology.
However, the matter is much more serious. If a body under the control of a Minister who is responsible to this House—we should remember that those who attended the meeting included the chairman of the board of the Housing Executive — is prepared through carelessness, laziness or, worse still, deliberate intent to mislead other Members of this House, that must call into question the rights and privileges of this House. Those rights and privileges were fought for and established over the centuries and have been jealously guarded by this illustrious House at all times.
It also unfortunately raises the question: has it happened before? Has it happened in other similar bodies in Northern Ireland, either knowingly or unknowingly? Those questions are probably impossible to answer without a great deal of investigation.
We hope that the Minister in his reply will give us a categorical assurance that he will do all in his power to see that it does not happen again. For our part, we will be extremely careful in future to see that it does not happen again. I only hope that we do not have continually to come back to the House seeking Adjournment debates to get the truth from the Housing Executive.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The information given to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) was, as he rightly said, incorrect. Mr. Cameron wrote to him apologising fully for having given the hon. Member wrong information. Mr. Cameron, whom Opposition Members know well, deeply regrets that, and I am absolutely convinced that there was no intention in his letter to the hon. Member to do anything other than give him the facts as they were presented to him.
As the hon. Member pointed out, a consultant employed by the Housing Executive was undertaking the work. The hon. Member raised the matter with the Housing Executive, on the basis that some of his constituents had complained that the larger windows had been placed in the buildings, which meant that their blinds and curtains did not fit. When the Housing Executive inquired of the consultants why this had happened, quite frankly, it got a cock and bull story. The Housing Executive deeply regrets that it fell for that line, and wrote to the hon. Member as it did.
The chairman of the Housing Executive is known to Opposition Members. In my dealings with him, even though I have occasionally taken hospitality from him, I have found that it has not in any way altered his strenuous defence of his right to question the Government's policies in relation to the money and back-up that the Housing Executive requires. He is a man of great personal integrity and determination and feels very strongly that hon. Members should be fully informed about what goes on in the Housing Executive.
The Housing Executive has 170,000 houses to manage, spends approximately £500 million per year and does

about 400,000 repairs each year, and things do go wrong. The chairman regrets that, and I am sure that the officers of the Housing Executive regret that. If there are ways to improve the relationship between the Housing Executive and hon. Members, I am sure that the executive would be only too willing to accept that. Of course there will be occasions when hon. Members, write to the executive, as there are when we write to our local housing authorities, and sometimes receive replies which we do not find to our taste. Having said that, I am not saying that information should not be given to hon. Members promptly, politely and properly, and it should be correct in every detail.
I inquired today how many letters had been received from hon. Members for Northern Ireland since the election. Some 3,600 have been received, and some 3,400 from councillors. The executive does its best, but the best sometimes falls short of the ideal.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Would the Minister say that it is coincidental that the letter to my hon. Friend arrived the day after the Order Paper was published? Will he acknowledge that most of those letters refer to simple items and press for cases to be considered? Does he share my concern about important matters such as a contractor being given further contracts when he was not insured? We were fobbed off with the sort of answer that had been put to the chairman, that such practice is detrimental to the public interest, to the taxpayers and to the Housing Executive.

Mr. Needham: If there are cases in which the hon. Gentleman feels that contracts may have been given without proper consideration, I should take that immensely seriously. It is crucial that that sort of construction is carefully monitored. I know that that view is fully understood by the chairman, the board and the officers of the Housing Executive. Having said that, I accept that it has not always got it right. If the hon. Gentleman presses me on whether it is a question of conspiracy on the one hand or a cock-up on the other, I think that, when mistakes were made, they were more likely to have been as a result of inadvertence rather than some deeply laid plan to avoid giving proper and sensible advice to hon. Members.
Nevertheless, I accept that hon. Members have every right to raise matters in the House if they feel that incorrect information has been given. I welcome that, because it is extremely important that the Government know exactly what is going on. Hon. Members are best able, in dealing with their constituents, to discover the facts on the ground.
I am sure that hon. Members will accept that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland has done a remarkable job over the past few years in raising the standard of public-sector housing and in effecting repairs. However, that does not give grounds for complacency.
I accept the point that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has made. We shall look, as will the chairman, at what can be done. If hon. Members think that steps could be taken to improve relationships with the Housing Executive at local, regional or central level to make communication easier and more efficient, we shall look at that.
On behalf of the Housing Executive, and Mr. Cameron, I apologise for the fact that the hon. Member for Antrim, East was given incorrect advice. I have looked into the matter carefully. I do not believe that there was any


intention to give that advice. Nevertheless, the wrong advice was given and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.